Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

European Economic Community

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he has, and what methods he will use, to keep Members of Parliament fully informed of the

progress made on the application to enter the Common Market.

Mr. Lane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he is making to keep the public informed of the progress of negotiations with the Common Market countries.

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his plans for publicising the negotiations for Great Britain's entry into the European Economic Community.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Anthony Barber): I shall be reporting to the House from time to time on the progress of negotiations, and will also be making information available through the Press and broadcasting media.

Mrs. Short: In view of the undoubted unpopularity of the proposals and of the difficulties among the Six which are becoming evident—for example, the latest difficulties with the lire and the mark—will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that we shall want to know absolutely and precisely, not only what proposals the Six make to us, but the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman makes to them and that we shall want the fullest opportunity to discuss them and to see his proposals produced as White Papers or Green Papers? Will he give the House an undertaking that this will be done and that there will be


adequate opportunity for the House to discuss the matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] This is a very important matter.

Mr. Barber: The hon. Lady is quite right: it is precisely because it is such an important matter that I shall be reporting to the House from time to time on the progress of the negotiations.

Mr. Lane: May I wish my right hon. Friend success in the negotiations? As the majority of the public appear to be neither in favour nor against but open to persuasion, would my right hon. Friend, in his regular progress reports to the public, put the maximum stress on the benefits as distinct from the disadvantages?

Mr. Barber: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's good wishes. We have never sought to disguise from the House and the country that there will be short-term disadvantages. But it is also absolutely right that one should point out the very important long-term and medium-term advantage to this country if we are able to join on reasonable terms.

Sir G. de Freitas: In any publicity, will the right hon. Gentleman take into account directly connected discussions such as those likely to take place next week, I think, in Geneva on trade between the E.E.C., the United States, Japan and this country?

Mr. Barber: Certainly. Those are the sort of considerations that I shall bear in mind in conducting the negotiations on behalf of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Common Market negotiations.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the state of the negotiations for Great Britain to join the Common Market.

Mr. Barnes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the opening of negotiations for British entry into the European Economic Community.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the negotiations to enter the European Economic Community.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the negotiations for British entry into the Common Market.

Mr. Barber: I would refer hon. Members to the statement which I made on our position when the negotiations for membership opened on 30th June. That statement was published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 4401).
I am leaving this afternoon for Brussels for the next Ministerial meeting which is being held tomorrow, and I shall report to the House on the outcome of that meeting at the earliest opportunity after my return to London.

Mr. Marten: Can my right hon. Friend clarify the Government's position towards a European monetary union? Do the Government intend to let sterling get locked into such a European monetary union? If so, how does this square with the thinking of the International Monetary Fund on more flexible exchange rates and also with our own sovereignty?

Mr. Barber: Her Majesty's Government have received no approaches from the European Economic Community on the question of international monetary matters. We are, of course, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, in close touch on these matters with the Community Governments along with those of other countries in bodies such as the I.M.F. and the Group of Ten. Perhaps I may say to my hon. Friend that, in general, we see no incompatibility between the aims of the I.M.F. in these fields and those of the European Economic Community.

Mr. Barnes: Now that the main negotiations are starting, will not the Minister agree that it is very important that the advantages of Britain's joining should be stated as positively as possible for people in this country? Would he not agree that that would in no way be incompatible with maintaining a strong negotiating position?

Mr. Barber: I agree entirely with what the hon. Member has said. In answer to a Question a few minutes ago, I said that I had never sought to hide the short-term difficulties of joining, but I agree that it is about time that the British people realised the longer-term benefits, provided that we can get reasonable terms. [Interruption.] The fact is that productivity in the Common Market has been rising faster than ours, output has been rising faster than ours, incomes have been rising faster than ours, consumption has been rising faster than ours, earnings in the Common Market have been rising faster than ours and the standard of living has been rising faster than ours.

Mr. Allaun: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House an undertaking that Britain will not, as part of the entrance fee, agree to share her nuclear secrets with France? Would not that be a breach of the spirit of the non-proliferation treaty?

Mr. Barber: Defence does not form any part of the Treaty of Rome and I would not think it likely to form any part of our negotiations.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Sir Hárry Legge-Bourke, whose work as my Chairman over the years I much appreciate.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I hope you will allow me to say how deeply I appreciate those very kind words, Mr. Speaker.
May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the course of the negotiations, he proposes to probe as deeply as possible the work which has been done so far on behalf of the Common Market countries by Professor Triffin, of Columbia University, who has been working on a common currency?

Mr. Barber: Again, no approaches have been made to Her Majesty's Government about this. I have, however, read what my hon. Friend has read in the Press and, obviously, I will bear in mind what he says. I cannot go further than that.

Mr. Barnett: While noting what the right hon. Gentleman said to his hon. Friend about there being no approach from the Six concerning international monetary matters, may I ask him to

comment on reports that the Foreign Secretary has agreed not to press or to support any new more flexible approach to these currency matters during the period of negotiations? As these may well last for up to two years, would not this be an outrageous commitment? Will the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, deny these reports?

Mr. Barber: The position is that Her Majesty's Government welcome the moves which the European Economic Community has already made towards closer economic and monetary integration and we are ready to play our full part.

Mr. Turton: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the financing of the Common Market agricultural policy will or will not be an early item on the agenda?

Mr. Barber: I hope that it can be considered reasonably early because it is of such great importance. It would be difficult for me to say exactly when it will be considered because, so far, we have had only the formal opening of the negotiations. It would be as well to wait until after the meeting to which I am travelling this afternoon before we are able to let the House and the country know which matters will be considered first.

Mr. Jay: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will give an assurance that it is not the policy of the Government to merge the United Kingdom in any Federal State in Western Europe or elsewhere.

Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear that our approach to this question is a pragmatic one. We want to work more closely together to achieve Europe's aims but it is not our intention to draw up a blueprint for a federal Europe.

Mr. Jay: Whatever that may mean, will not the Minister give a clear assurance, as did the Prime Minister in the previous Government, that this is not the policy of the Government?

Mr. Barber: What I said meant exactly what I said. The simple fact, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows, is that there is no reference to federalism in the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. Marten: Even pragmatism can work very rapidly sometimes. Is not it, therefore, the duty of our Government to look ahead as statesmen and say whether or not they will accept federalism?

Mr. Barber: I should have thought that it was a sufficient safeguard to say that a federal State could not be brought into being without the assent of all the members of the Community.

Oral Answers to Questions — Security Conference

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take initiatives to make a Security Conference possible at the earliest opportunity.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): I would welcome a well-prepared and businesslike meeting provided that we could be sure that matters of real substance would be dealt with. We are studying the situation with our allies.

Mrs. Short: That is the same reply as I was receiving from the Foreign Secretary's predecessors. Would the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that very many of us are anxious to see progress made in this matter? Will he give the House an undertaking that he will support anything that the West German Government are doing in order to reach agreement with the Warsaw Pact Powers?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That is a rather different question. But I think that the hon. Lady will have seen, as a result of the communiqué issued after I talked with Herr Scheel, that we are supporting the German policy. The matter raised in the original Question is now being studied with our allies in N.A.T.O., and there will be a N.A.T.O. reply

Mr Frank Allaun: Will the right hon. Gentleman press N.A.T.O. to make specific proposals for mutual troop reductions? This matter has been under discussion since December, 1967, and no specific proposals have been forthcoming.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: There are certain specific proposals. In 1968 the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) and the allies proposed that there should be talks about force reduc-

tions. There is now a proposal that some standing machinery might be set up by such a conference on European affairs.

Mr. M. Stewart: Would the Foreign Secretary agree that the most recent statement by the countries of the Warsaw Pact is worthy of most careful study and could form the basis of a wise way of dealing with East-West relations?

Sir A. Douglas-Home: Certainly.

Oral Answers to Questions — Aircraft (Hi-jacking)

Sir R. Russell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made with the adoption of an international convention for the prevention of hi-jacking of aircraft.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Joseph Godber): The draft Convention on Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft prepared by the Legal Committee of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (I.C.A.O.) is to be considered at a diplomatic conference in The Hague in December. The recent Extraordinary Assembly of I.C.A.O. adopted a resolution calling upon States invited to the diplomatic conference to make every reasonable effort to reach agreement and thereafter to ratify quickly.

Sir R. Russell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since we last discussed the question in the House, a number of aircraft have been hi-jacked, fortunately without very serious consequences? Could he try to persuade countries which are members of I.C.A.O. to expedite this matter?

Mr. Godber: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the need for speed but, unfortunately, under the I.C.A.O. rules of procedure, Governments must have at least six months in which to study. We will, however, be watching this and hurrying it up in any way we can.

Oral Answers to Questions — Beira Blockade

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will now discontinue the Beira blockade.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have nothing further to add to the Answer I


gave to a Question by the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) on 6th July.—[Vol. 803, c. 322–3.]

Mr. Wall: While recognising that sanctions will remain until the talks with Rhodesia have been completed, may I ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind that this ridiculous blockade is unpopular with the Royal Navy, is expensive to the taxpayer and is completely ineffective as Rhodesia receives all the oil she wants by other means?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: That may be but, nevertheless, as part of the negotiating policy, we have said that we will keep sanctions on until we see the position more clearly.

Mr. Maclennan: Why does the right hon. Gentleman say, "That may be"? Does he accept any of the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall)? Will he not deny that this is an ineffective blockade and that it is unpopular with our serving forces?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I can hardly deny what my hon. Friend says. For example, the blockade costs £400,000 a year.

Oral Answers to Questions — Lesotho

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about constitutional relations with Lesotho.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Anthony Royle): It was announced on 11th June that normal relations were being resumed with Lesotho, and business is now being conducted with the Government of Lesotho in the usual way.

Mr. Wall: While welcoming that reply, may I ask my hon. Friend to inform the House whether aid is now being supplied to Lesotho on the lines already agreed?

Mr. Royle: I understand that the local representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is in touch with the situation concerning refugees. I would refer to the Answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Overseas Development on 9th

July regarding the resumption of British aid and the problems of food in Lesotho.

Mr. Steel: Will the Minister explain what constitutional changes took place in Lesotho between the original election and 11th June which made the resumption of constitutional relations possible?

Mr. Royle: The main reason for the delay in resuming normal relations was a matter for the previous Administration and I am unable to answer in that respect. Our normal criteria for recognition are that we should be satisfied that a new Government enjoys, with a reasonable prospect of permanence, the obedience of the mass of the population and effective control over the greater part of the territory concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — Anguilla

Mr. Marten: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the future of Anguilla.

Mr. Godber: The Commission appointed jointly by the last Government and by Mr. Bradshaw to inquire into the Anguilla problem has not yet completed its work. When its report is available, we shall review the situation in consultation with the State Government and the Anguillans.

Mr. Marten: Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government hold to the undertaking that the Anguillans will be administered in a way which they want? Secondly, will he take early steps to eradicate the rather shameful expedition by the previous Administration to this peaceful island?

Mr. Godber: In reply to the first point raised by my hon. Friend, a satisfactory settlement can be achieved only by consultation and agreement, and we stand by the assurance in this sense which was given to the Anguillans by the previous Administration. As to the second point, we must see how we get on.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects the Wooding Commission on Anguilla to report; and if the report will be published.

Mr. Godber: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Marten). Subject to the agreement of the St. Kitts Government, to whom the Commission's report will also be addressed, I would expect the report to be published in due course.

Mr. Fisher: However wise and reasonable the Wooding Commission's Report is—and I am sure it will be—it is unlikely to be acceptable to both sides, because of the wide gulf between them. In view of that, can we have an indication of my right hon. Friend's views on the problem, which was so badly mishandled by the last Government?

Mr. Godber: Without saying anything about what happened before, I think that it would be unwise to comment in advance of the report. I had better wait and see the report and then see whether we can do better than the previous Government did.

Oral Answers to Questions — Africa (Commonwealth Countries)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to visit the African countries of the Commonwealth.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I should like to be able to visit some of the African Commonwealth countries at a future date.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it might have been wise to have paid a visit to these countries before he made his excursion into the rôle of arms salesman? Is he satisfied, or does he merely hope, that there will be many of these countries for him to visit after his announcement this afternoon?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have already visited many of these African countries and I know most of the African leaders, and, therefore, I shall be very glad to resume contact with them at some future date. There are many invitations for a Foreign Secretary to go abroad. It is sometimes better for him to stay at his desk.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: When my right hon. Friend is in touch with those countries will he point out to them

that their safety and prosperity and, indeed, their continued independence depend on free, unfettered use of all the sea routes around Africa?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall be dealing with these matters a little later this afternoon.

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to visit the African countries of the Commonwealth and in particular Nigeria.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave earlier today in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan).

Mr. Crouch: As regards Nigeria, may I remind my right hon. Friend that the last Administration gave positive help to the Government of Nigeria in suppressing a minority in that country? Is he aware that there is concern in this country that insufficient effective help is being given by that Government to the alleviation of the distress of that minority in the Eastern Region and that it would help if my right hon. Friend visited that country?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The help given by the Nigerian Government for relief is another matter. I hope that perhaps the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart), who was previously Foreign Secretary, might well manage to visit Nigeria. Certainly, if I can do so soon I should like to visit that country.

Mr. Grimond: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety about relief in the former territory of Biafra and that it might help if he visited Nigeria and afterwards made a statement in the House about the situation in what was Biafra and about the destination of British help?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will certainly bear that in mind. But, as I said before the right hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber, there are many claims on a Foreign Secretary to visit different countries. Certainly I will bear it in mind.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: Now that the civil war in Nigeria is over, would not it be


useful and indicative of our friendship with Nigeria if my right hon. Friend visited the country this summer or in the autumn to establish personal contact with General Gowon?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. The possibiliity in the future is that General Gowon might come here. There can be no doubt about the friendship of Her Majesty's Government for the Nigerian Government. I think that we showed the attitude of friendship all the way through that Government's difficulties in their war.

Mr. Bottomley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) would be a welcome visitor to Nigeria and that, after his visit, it would be better to leave Nigerian affairs to the Federal Government?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would agree with both propositions.

Oral Answers to Questions — Persian Gulf

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will seek to visit the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held with the representatives of States in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultation he has now had with Governments concerned relating to the British military presence in the Gulf.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have no early plans for a visit to the Persian Gulf. I took the opportunity of having discussions with the Shah of Iran in Brussels on 10th July, and I am in close touch with King Faisal of Saudi Arabia and other leaders in the area through diplomatic channels. Our future policy will not be determined finally until all concerned have been consulted.

Mr. Maclennan: Is it the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman to promote the union of the Arab Emirates in the Gulf, and, if it is, does he think this will be

assisted by maintaining a British military presence there in the light of the expressed hostility to it of leading Powers in the area, including the Shah of Iran and Kuwait?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If we are successful in forming the union of the Arab Emirates—and I hope we may be successful—it is for them to say, in consultation with Britain, what support they want.

Mr. Allaun: But if Britain persists in opposing the wishes of the major States, will there not be some danger of provoking another Aden type situation? Secondly, when the world is bursting with oil, and countries like Germany and Japan can get all the oil they want without having a single soldier in the area, why should not we?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is a matter of consultation with the countries in the area, particularly Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the Rulers. I think I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman's question at a later date when, as I hope, we are successful in finding a solution.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of the difficulties in forming the federation to which he referred is uncertainty as to what, if anything, the British Government are going to do about the presence of British troops in the Gulf, and that this uncertainty leads to important decisions being dodged? May I ask him, therefore, when some Minister is going to visit the Gulf, or, alternatively, whom we have in the Gulf at the moment, at a high level, to cope with this important situation?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes. Quite shortly, I hope, the right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the plans I have made in this direction.

Captain W. Elliot: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that stability induced by a British presence in this area benefits not only this country but all other countries as well?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, all the countries in the area of the Gulf are interested in political stability. The question is what kind of security arrangements they want to make, and, in particular, after, as we hope, a federation is formed.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received in the past month from the rulers of Dubai, Abu Dhabi or Bahrein, respectively, regarding the retention of a British military presence in the Gulf after 1971.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am in continual and close contact with all the Rulers in the Persian Gulf through Her Majesty's Political Resident and Political Agents. It would not be right for me to divulge the content of confidential exchanges with any of the Gulf Rulers.

Mr. Wilkinson: What rôle does my right hon. Friend envisage British forces playing in that area in the immediate future?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We have to discuss with the Rulers of the Gulf, the Shah of Iran and King Feisal of Saudi Arabia what will be the political structure in the Gulf. We hope that it will be a Federal structure and a union of Arab Emirates. Then we shall have to discuss what security system they feel is necessary to support that union.

Mr. Healey: As the Saudi Arabian Government have recently reasserted certain claims as regards the frontiers between Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia, what steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to achieve a peaceful solution of this dispute, and what military obligations have Her Majesty's Government if they fail?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: As regards the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's question, we are taking such steps as we can through diplomatic channels to help settle these disputes. As to exact obligations in respect of that dispute, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to table another Question.

Mr. Wilkinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what approaches have been made by the Trucial States to Her Majesty's Government in the past month regarding the provision of arms, military equipment or training.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is not the practice to disclose details of approaches of this kind from other Governments.

Mr. Wilkinson: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the best contribution that Her Majesty's Government could make in this area, as they have in the past, would be to build up the indigenous capacity in air defence and the Trucial Scouts which would be effective against Saudi Arabia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Trucial Scouts have played a very useful rôle up to now. What their rôle will be in any future political settlement remains to be seen and is a matter for discussion.

Oral Answers to Questions — South Africa (Arms)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the possible resumption of arms sales to South Africa.

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to observe the Resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, respectively, 181 of 7th August, 1963, 182 of 4th November, 1963, and 191 of 18th June, 1964, in so far as they related to the supply of arms to South Africa.

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what communications he has had from Africa states in the Commonwealth on the matter of the sale of arms to South Africa;
(2) what communication he has received from the South African Government regarding the revision of the Simonstown Agreement; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Gregor Mackenzie: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the South African Government concerning a revision of the Simonstown Defence Agreement.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would ask the hon. Gentlemen to await the statement which, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall be making later this afternoon on the Government's attitude to the Simonstown Agreement with South Africa.

Oral Answers to Questions — Salmon Fishing (Discussions)

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in discussions with the Danish Government about the effects of Danish salmon fishing off Greenland on salmon fishing in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Anthony Royle: As a result of these discussions, both Governments were able to support proposals which were approved at the June meeting of the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. The new measures, effective throughout 1971, include restrictions of the catch or tonnage of boats to the 1969 level, an eight months close season and a prohibition on certain types of nets and gear.

Mr. Russell Johnston: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that this is hardly sufficiently satisfactory in that, although some progress has been made, I think his answer reflects a rather more optimistic situation than that which really exists, and when many people are extremely worried that if the Danes continue with their activities off Greenland there could be a threat to the very existence of Atlantic salmon?

Mr. Royle: As a fisherman myself, I sympathise with the hon. Member. This agreement does not give Britain all that we wanted and, of course, it was a compromise. Like some other countries which supported our proposal for a ban, we would have liked more rigorous restrictions. Nevertheless, it is a useful step forward that the countries engaged in the fishery have accepted the principle of limitation.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: In view of the importance of this and other fishery issues to many countries apart from Britain and Denmark, will my hon. Friend consider strengthening the policing of any fishery agreement reached?

Mr. Royle: Yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — Western European Union (Ministerial Meeting)

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he proposes to attend the next meeting of the Council of Ministers of Western European Union.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I hope that in the future I will be able to attend a Ministerial meeting of the Council of Western European Union. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster as the Minister responsible for European affairs will be attending the next Ministerial meeting of the Council.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: Will my right hon. Friend do all he can to maintain the usefulness of this organisation? Did he take the opportunity of discussing it with the French authorities during his recent visit to Paris?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I discussed a number of matters with the French authorities, not particularly W.E.U. It would be my intention, as far as I can, to promote the discussions which take place in Western European Union, because I think they are very useful.

Oral Answers to Questions — Rhodesia

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to initiate talks with the illegal régime in Rhodesia.

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the preparation of the Government's arrangements for negotiations with the illegal Smith régime in Rhodesia.

Mr. Sillars: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications he has had with the illegal Smith régime in Rhodesia since 19th June.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have nothing to add to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's Answers to Questions by the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and others on 14th July.

Mr. Hamilton: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Early Day Motion No. 21 specifically referring to the statements made by the Prime Minister on 14th July, when he declared that the five principles were enunciated by the right hon. Gentleman himself as Prime Minister and agreed by Mr. Smith, and that there is no evidence of that agreement in the Blue Book subsequently produced? Will the right hon.


Gentleman produce that evidence which the Prime Minister twice asserted on 14th July existed?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is perfectly true that we did agree matters should be handled at that time, in 1964, on the basis of these principles. Whether they were written down—they are not written down in the Blue Book—I do not know, but Mr. Smith accepted the five principles at that time.

Mr. Judd: Would the Foreign Secretary agree that basically what we are faced with here is an issue of trust, and that with regard to the illegal Smith régime there can be no question of the British Government ever approving independence before majority rule is established?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think we had better see what kind of agreement is possible before we come to a conclusion.

Mr. M. Stewart: The Government have made it clear that during any talks they may have with the illegal régime they will continue sanctions. Is it equally clear that they will continue sanctions unless and until an agreement in conformity with the six principles is reached?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think we had better wait to see if we can get any negotiation at all.

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which of the six principles in relation to negotiations with the illegal régime in Rhodesia listed in Cmnd. Paper No. 3793 has been dropped by Her Majesty's Government.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Member will be aware of the Answer which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave to his similar Question on 14th July. The principle in question is No. 6 of Annex A to Cmnd. Paper No. 3793.—[Vol. 803, c. 1361–2.]

Mr. Davis: Will the Foreign Secretary restate that principle? Will he also say that he is fully committed to the other five principles and that the Government will in no circumstances permit any abrogation of any of those principles in the negotiations with the illegal and discredited régime in Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have already said that any arrangements made with Rhodesia would be within the five principles. The sixth principle is the protection of the European minority in the event of majority rule. I think we had better get the five out of the way first.

Oral Answers to Questions — South Africa (Talks)

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his recent talks with representatives of the South African Government.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have nothing to add to what I told the hon. Gentleman (Mr. William Hamilton) on 6th July.—[Vol. 803, c. 2.]

Mr. Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman told me nothing that day. Will he now say why he felt it important that the first Foreign Minister in the world that he should talk to after the General Election was the South African Foreign Minister, and whether he discussed anything other than arms sales to South Africa?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am quite capable of saying nothing again to the hon. Gentleman, but I will tell him that the reason I saw the South African Foreign Minister was that he happened to be in London and asked to see me.

Oral Answers to Questions — Israel (Supply of Arms)

Mr. Bob Brown: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, in the light of the supply of Soviet arms to Egypt, Her Majesty's Government will now permit the sale of Chieftain tanks to Israel with a view to preserving the balance of power in the Middle East.

Mr. Godber: I have nothing to add to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) on 6th July.—[Vol. 803, c. 1.]

Mr. Brown: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the preservation of social democracy in the Middle East is extremely important, not least for the under-privileged in the Arab States, and does not he consider this a matter for urgent decision?

Mr. Godber: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter of the very greatest importance. We are trying to reduce tension in the area, and we will bear what he says in mind in relation to any applications for arms.

Mr. Mayhew: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unfortunately, Israel's policies are almost as unpopular with the General Assembly and the Security Council as South Africa's and that, while she persists in them, selling arms to her will produce extremely difficult political, economic and moral problems for us?

Mr. Godber: I have heard similar arguments in regard to the Arab States. We have to look at both sides in this difficult matter, and I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not wish me to comment.

Mr. Kaufman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that if no Chieftain tanks are sold by the British Government to Israel, then no British tanks will be sold to Libya?

Mr. Godber: I have already said that we do not give any indication with regard to individual arms sales. All these matters are kept in perspective, and it is certainly not our desire to give advantage to one side or the other.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R. and Republic of South Africa

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of South Africa.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Our policies towards the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Union of South Africa, like our policies towards other countries, are based on the national interest.

Mr. Iremonger: Which of these two equally odious régimes is most avidly dedicated to the destruction of the free world?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If any régime is devoted to the destruction of the free world, it will find us against it.

Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is the view of many experts in all countries that his proposal

to sell arms to South Africa will immensely strengthen the hand of the Soviet Union throughout the African continent?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: When the right hon. Gentleman has had as many contacts with the Soviet Union as I have, he will know that they do exactly what they like irrespective of what anyone else does.

Mr. Healey: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the success of the Soviet Government in Africa and elsewhere depends upon the attitude towards the United Kingdom and the West of the local régimes, and that that attitude is bound to be prejudiced by the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will wait and see what the proposals are.

Mr. Braine: Is not it a fact that the late Labour Government not only considered that the Simonstown Agreement was important to British interests, and said so publicly, but also supplied live practice ammunition to the South African Navy?

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is to be a statement on this at the end of Questions.

Mr. Braine: In view of this, is not it odd that importance should be attached to a joint agreement for defence in the South Atlantic, but that the means of carrying it out should be denied to one partner?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, I said this myself the other day. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that if any Commonwealth country looked at the record of Britain and compared it with the record of the Soviet Union, that country would think twice before criticising us.

Oral Answers to Questions — France (Talks)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on his recent discussions with M. Maurice Schumann, the French Foreign Minister.

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth


Affairs whether the question of the French rejoining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was discussed with the French Foreign Minister during his recent visit to Paris; and what was the outcome.

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his official talks with members of the French Government.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My talks with the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister of France on 15th July were very friendly indeed. They were an encouraging sign of the continuing process of improvement in the close relations that we enjoy with the French Government. The details of our conversation must remain confidential, but we covered, among other matters of common interest, European affairs, including relations between East and West Europe, and the situation in the Middle East.

Mr. Lewis: As the details, which are confidential, seem to have been officially leaked or inspired and have appeared in the Press, will the right hon. Gentleman say what discussions there have been on nuclear weapons?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir, not beyond saying that I have said to the French Foreign Minister that if France had anything to say to us on this subject we should be glad to hear it.

Mr. Moyle: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the French have decided to return to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation? If they have not, how will the Prime Minister's concept of an Anglo-French joint nuclear deterrent ever be applied, or is this a policy which will be quietly dropped by the right hon. Gentleman now that the General Election has been held?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The French Government must express their view to the N.A.T.O. Alliance; it is not for me to do so. The French Government have done so. There could be nuclear arrangements complementary to the N.A.T.O. Alliance, if necessary.

Mr. Healey: In view of the great importance of his last statement that there might be nuclear arrangements between

Britain and France complementary to N.A.T.O. but outside the context of the Alliance—a statement which will be profoundly disturbing to most of our allies in Europe—will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he has consulted our partners in the Nuclear Planning Group of N.A.T.O. on this matter and, if not, why not?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I did not say what the right hon. Gentleman attributed to me. I said that there could be arrangements. Whether it is practical or desirable that there should be is quite another matter, and whether the French will have anything to propose on this is unsure.

Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question about consultation with the Nuclear Planning Group?

Oral Answers to Questions — Middle East (Arms Embargo)

Mr. Christopher Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will take steps to promote an arms embargo against any Middle Eastern country rejecting the Security Council's unanimous peace proposals.

Mr. Godber: There is no evidence that the major suppliers would agree to impose an embargo of the kind proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Mayhew: Nevertheless, there is evidence that for some months the Americans have withheld arms supplies from Israel until a more positive attitude is shown to the admirable Rogers proposal. At the same time, there is evidence that the Russians have refused deliveries of offensive weapons of the Phantom type to Egypt. Are not these hopeful signs and might not the Government, perhaps with the French Government, try to develop them?

Mr. Godber: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there are certain hopeful signs here. We should like to see the latest American initiative, which we support, go further. We should like to de-escalate in some way. Our job is to work within the four-Power group, and this is what we are seeking to do.

Mr. Wilkinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the heavy losses


incurred by the Israeli Air Force from the surface-to-air weapons supplied by the Soviet Union, and the increasing danger these missiles cause to their air operations?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir, we are aware of the way in which, on both sides, these weapons have created greater problems in recent months. We should like to see a reduction in these weapons, and this is why I gave the answer I did earlier.

Oral Answers to Questions — China (Detained British Subjects)

Sir G. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British subjects are known to be in Chinese custody either in prison or under house arrest; and what proportion has not been brought to trial.

Mr. Anthony Boyle: Seven British subjects are at present detained, or believed to be detained, in China: I will, with permission, circulate a list of their names in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Only one, Mr. George Watt, has been brought to trial and sentenced.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that for some strange reason sentenced prisoners in China are less badly treated than those awaiting trial? If this is so and we cannot obtain the release of those who are there, can we press that they should be brought to trial?

Mr. Royle: We share the right hon. Gentleman's deep concern on this matter, and the previous Government made repeated representations to the Chinese. More recently on 9th July I raised this matter on behalf of the present Government with the Chinese chargé d'affaires in London. We consider that this is a very grave matter, and we will continue to press the Chinese.

Mr. McMaster: Will the hon. Gentleman press the Chinese so that ordinary access may be available to Mr. George Watt and others in the custody of the Chinese?

Mr. Royle: We have several times raised with the Chinese the possibility of Mr. Watt's three-year sentence being in part remitted. This was raised officially on 2nd July with the Chinese chargé d'affaires. We will continue to press them.

Following is the list:

BRITISH SUBJECTS DETAINED OR BELIEVED TO BE DETAINED BY THE CHINESE (13th July, 1970)

Mr. P. D. Crouch, Second Officer of the "Demodocus" detained at Shanghai on 3rd April, 1968.

Mr. D. C. Johnston, former Manager of the Shanghai branch of the Chartered Bank, arrested on a spying charge on 25th August, 1968.

Mr. George Watt, a Vickers-Zimmer engineer arrested on 26th September, 1967, and sentenced to three years' imprisonment for alleged spying by a Lanchow court on 15th March, 1968.

Mrs. Gladys Yang, a British wife of a Chinese national who worked as a literary translator and is thought to have been detained in July, 1968.

Mrs. Epstein, Mr. Michael Shapiro, Mr. David Crook, were employed by the Chinese authorities and are thought to have been detained towards the end of 1967.

Oral Answers to Questions — South Africa and Portugal

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to make official visits to South Africa and Portugal.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have no plans to do so at present.

Mr. Judd: Would the Foreign Secretary contemplate going soon to both destinations to explain to the Heads of State and Foreign Ministers in those countries that the only justification for British commitment to N.A.T.O. is our utter and principled commitment to defend democracy, freedom and justice and that we have no intention, directly or indirectly, of becoming involved in alliances which are designed to protect the very ends to which N.A.T.O. is theoretically opposed?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir. Of course we do not take part in alliances which have objectives other than those which we support.

Oral Answers to Questions — East-West Relations

Mr. Clinton Davis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Her Majesty's Government will support the proposals of the West German Government designed to reduce tension between East and West.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Her Majestys' Government support the Federal Government's Eastern initiatives which they believe to be imaginative and realistic.

Mr. Davis: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that his answer will be greatly encouraging to the democratic Socialist leadership in West Germany and will be greatly discouraging to the right-wing attacks which are made on that leadership?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I cannot say whether or to whom my answer will be encouraging or discouraging. The point of view of Her Majesty's Government is that it is well to open up discussions with the Soviet Union.

Mr. Richard: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that if anything is likely to sabotage the West German proposals to ease tension between East and West it is any suggestion of an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent outside N.A.T.O.? Would he take this opportunity to assure the House that that type of co-operation is not in the Government's mind?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Certainly there would be nothing outside the European context. I do not know whether there could be anything at all. The hon. Gentleman need not make much of this matter, because we have heard no views yet from the French Government. If they wish to put any forward, we should be glad to listen.

Oral Answers to Questions — South-West Africa (Uranium)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, in view of the fact that the contract between the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Rio Tinto Corporation for the supply of uranium from South-West Africa is contrary to United Nations resolutions in the General Assembly and the Security Council, he will direct the Authority to terminate the contract.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir.

Mr. Jenkins: Since the presence of South Africa in South-West Africa has been declared illegal by the United Nations, is not Government support of

this proposal evidence of the fact that their support of the United Nations and their supposed abhorrence of apartheid are equally bogus?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Gentleman should address the question to his own Front Bench, since this project was authorised by the previous Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — Falkland Islands

Mr. Braine: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the talks due to take place this month with the Argentine Government on the subject of the Falkland Islands.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Common-weath Affairs whether he will make a statement on his policy regarding talks with Argentina concerning the Falkland Islands.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will end negotiations or talks with the Argentine Republic concerning the sovereignty and future status of the Falkland Islands; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Joseph Godber: The present discussions in London are related solely to the question of communications between the Islands and Argentina. The question of sovereignty is not on the agenda. Her Majesty's Government's position remains that there could be no question of any transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders.

Mr. Braine: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if difficulties over communications have arisen these have never been caused by the Falkland Islanders whose sole fault throughout has been their wish to remain British? May we have a categoric assurance from my right hon. Friend this afternoon that there will be no further discussion whatsoever on the subject of sovereignty?

Mr. Godber: The position of Her Majesty's Government is that there can be no question of any transfer of sovereignty against the wishes of the islanders.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: But does my right hon. Friend realise that these discussions have been going on for a very long time, to the detriment of the islanders? Could he not call off the discussions and tell the Argentine Government once and for all that there is no question of a transfer of sovereignty?

Mr. Godber: We should recognise that the islanders have an interest in these discussions and at present there are three Falkland Islanders participating in the discussions. They are on practical matters and I believe can be of help between the two countries.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the sensible attitude he has taken will commend itself to my hon. Friends and myself.

Mr. Godber: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions — Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Staff)

Mr. Arthur Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects to make a decision on the number of staff employed in the Foreign Office and their overseas departments, and in the expenditure incurred by the Foreign Office.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The numbers of staff employed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and in Missions abroad, and the related expenditure must depend on the results of the review of tasks begun under the previous Administration in the light of the Duncan Report. This process will continue.

Mr. Lewis: Is that not a strange reply, because the Foreign Secretary knew this before he made his promise during the General Election to cut the costs of public administration and the number of civil servants? Cannot he give some idea of how many staff he will cut down and how much money he will save in the Foreign Office? Since the electorate was expecting action on this, must they now be disappointed?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Not yet, Sir, is the answer. We have not made the review. But, if the hon. Gentleman is interested, may I say that since 1964–65

there have been reductions of over 8 per cent. in staff covering functions now carried out by the Diplomatic Service.

Oral Answers to Questions — South-West Africa

Mr. Robert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy regarding the recognition of South Africa's right to administer South-West Africa.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The legal status of South West Africa is still in doubt and, pending clarification of the legal position, we acknowledge that the South African Government continues in practice to exercise de facto control over South-West Africa.

Mr. Hughes: Is not the Foreign Secretary's answer disgraceful in view of United Nations Resolution 2145, of October, 1966, which terminated the mandate and brought the territory under the direct control of the United Nations?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: It is no service to the United Nations to ask it to stretch itself beyond its capacity, particularly when the legal position is in doubt. Again I refer to the fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite had no compunction about sanctioning the placing of British industry in South-West Africa?

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the legal position is in no doubt at all and that, if the previous Government made a mistake, that is no good reason why he should follow it?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I emphatically agree with the last part of the hon. Gentleman's answer.

Mr. Hastings: Will we recognise that the Rhodesian Government exercise de facto control over Rhodesia?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No, Sir, we have not taken any decision of that kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — Simonstown Agreement

Mr. John Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied that all the provisions of the Simonstown Agreement have been


carried out; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We intend to give effect to the purposes of the Agreement. I cannot answer for the period of the last Administration.

Mr. Morris: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the resumption of arms sales to South Africa would have tragic consequences for the Commonwealth and would fly in the face of the views of the United Nations? If the matter comes before the Security Council with a view to making the Resolution mandatory, will the United Kingdom Government use their veto?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Those are all hypothetical questions, and the hon. Gentleman had better await my statement at the end of Questions.

Mr. John Morris: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied that the South African Government have complied with the requirements of the Simonstown Agreement as regards equality of opportunity to work at the naval base regardless of colour; and if he will make a statement.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have no evidence that the South African Government are not fulfilling their obligations.

Mr. Morris: Whatever the right hon. Gentleman's statement may be later today, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the future obligations of the South African Government as regards non-discrimination are looked after?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Yes, Sir. I will ask the Ambassador to make inquiries through the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Cervical Smear Tests

Mr. Nigel Fisher: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will authorise from public funds a sum of money to be made available to the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign, in order to make women aware of the wisdom of having cervical smear tests.

The Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): The Health Education Council, which is financed from public funds, has recently lent £2,000 to the Women's National Cancer Control Campaign and has indicated readiness to give further help, if necessary, with particular expenses the Campaign expects to incur.

White Hart Hospital, Harrogate

Mr. George Jeger: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether a decision has been made on the future of the White Hart Hospital, Harrogate.

Mr. Ramsden: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the Leeds Regional Hospital Board's decision to close the White Hart Hospital in Harrogate.

Mr. Alison: The Leeds Regional Hospital Board is undertaking local consultations on its proposal to close the White Hart Hospital. My right hon. Friend will take any representations into account before taking a decision on the future of the hospital.

Mr. Jeger: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if the hospital were to close, it would cause great distress among a large number of people who benefit from the specialist services that it supplies? If it is closed, will those specialist services be transferred to another hospital for the benefit of people in the West Riding who enjoy them now?

Mr. Alison: On the latter part of the Question, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to await consideration of the representations being received by the board. They are being considered by it at present.

Hospital Services (Folkestone and Hythe)

Mr. Costain: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is aware that there is concern among the local authorities in Folkestone and Hythe constituency that they have no representation on the regional hospital management board, and decisions have been made on


the future development of hospital services without any official notification to them; and if he will take steps to remedy the position.

Mr. Alison: Members of regional hospital boards and hospital management committees are not appointed as representatives of particular bodies or interests. I am aware of the local concern about future development of the hospital service and will be writing to my hon. Friend. In the meantime I can assure him that there are no plans to close the Royal Victoria Hospital, Folkestone.

Mr. Costain: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is prepared to meet a delegation, with a view to explaining the matter personally?

Mr. Alison: I would certainly view most sympathetically any representations made by my hon. Friend.

Prescription Charges

Mr. David Stoddart: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will exempt from the payment of prescription charges the wives of pensioners aged between 60 and 65 years.

Mr. Alison: No, Sir.

Mr. Stoddart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is a most unsatisfactory answer and that a great deal of hardship will be caused to people in this category? Will he reconsider his decision?

Mr. Alison: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should consider it an unsatisfactory answer. It is very much in line with the answers recently given to similar Questions by his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman).

Pensioners (Earnings Rule)

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he proposes to ease the earnings rule for retirement pensioners.

The Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): My right hon. Friend has no statement to make at present but as I said in reply to the hon. Member for

Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) on 13th July, this is one of the aspects of social security to which we shall be giving close consideration.—[Vol. 803, c. 123.]

Mrs. Oppenheim: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm, in view of the Answer given to the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Dean) on 12th February, 1970, that a retirement pension is a right for which the recipient and his employer have largely paid and should not, therefore, be subject to any means test such as the earnings rule represents?

Mr. Dean: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her researches. I assure her that we are giving sympathetic consideration to this point.

Mr. Lomas: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the suggestion outlined and embodied in the proposals in the Conservative manifesto is yet another promise which we know will not be fulfilled?

Mr. Dean: Her Majesty's Government have already fulfilled a number of pledges in the manifesto in record time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that all the pledges on social security and on other matters will be fulfilled in due course.

HON. MEMBER FOR MID-ULSTER

Mr. Latham: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Minister for Home Affairs for Northern Ireland, with reference to the case of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): rose—

Mr. Latham: It may assist the House if I point out that this is the subject of Oral Question No. 116 on the Order Paper.

Mr. Maudling: The Northern Ireland Government are as aware as hon. Members here of the interests of the constituency of Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin). I understand that the hon. Member's legal advisers are meeting officials of the Ministry of Home Affairs in Belfast today


to discuss how the interests may best be protected.

Mr. Latham: Did not the Home Secretary feel obliged to discuss particularly with the Northern Ireland Minister whether facilities might be granted to enable the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster to be sworn in? I understand that the hon. Lady is unable to exercise functions which an imprisoned M.P. would normally be able to exercise were she not the subject of imprisonment and denied the opportunity of being sworn in.

Mr. Maudling: I understand that the question of swearing in is a matter for the officials of the House.

Mr. Callaghan: Did the Home Secretary elicit any information from Mr. Porter whether the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster is receiving communications from her constituents, whether she has any right to reply, and whether any facilities have been provided for her to see constituents at any particular hours? Without regard to what may pass between the hon. Member's legal advisers and the Minister for Home Affairs, has not this House also some interest in what happens to those who are elected to it?

Mr. Maudling: Naturally. This is why I am concerned. I am hoping that in the discussions proposals will be put forward to deal with the problem.

Mr. Driberg: Is it the case, meanwhile, that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster is receiving some correspondence, but that it is censored by the prison governor? If so, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman made representations for her freedom of correspondence when he discussed the matter with the Minister for Home Affairs?

Mr. Maudling: I do not understand that it is being censored. As I said, discussions are taking place—it seemed the sensible way to go about it—to see how best the problem could be resolved in the interests of the hon. Member's constituents.

Mr. McMaster: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that any right hon. or hon. Member of this House will be treated in the same way as any citizen found guilty of inciting their fellow citizens to riot or using petrol bombs?

Mr. Maudling: I think that this is a question of protecting the interests of the constituents.

Mr. C. Pannell: I understood the Home Secretary, in answer to an earlier question about the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster taking the oath and putting herself in a correct position as a full Member of this House, to say that it was a matter for the officials of the House. In saying that, I presume that the right hon. Gentleman is putting a certain obligation on you, Mr. Speaker, with the assumption that you might have been remiss. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, carefully to study that answer and make a statement tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can answer it now. The taking of the oath is a matter for the House. Mr. Speaker cannot interfere with the course of law to enable an hon. Member to come and take the oath in the House.

Mr. Pannell: What you have just stated, Mr. Speaker, was my impression. But I am taking up what the Home Secretary said. I should be glad if, in his own interests, he would make the position clear, because it seemed to lay an obligation on you, Mr. Speaker. My frank view is that it is really a matter for the Government of the day. Will the right hon. Gentleman repeat his point?

Mr. Turton: On a point of order. Will you, Mr. Speaker, help the House by explaining how a Question which is given by public notice on the Order Paper can be taken as a Private Notice Question by an hon. Member other than the hon. Member whose name is on the Order Paper?

Mr. Speaker: It is quite simple. Hon. Members, on the whole, protest that Private Notice Questions are not allowed. The Father of the House is now protesting because a Private Notice Question has been allowed. For a long time the House had prevented Mr. Speaker taking a Private Notice Question if there were any similar Question on the Order Paper. It then decided and instructed Mr. Speaker that, even though a similar Question were on the Order Paper, written or oral, if there was no likelihood of it being reached he could, if he thought


it right, take a Private Notice Question. It is as simple as that.

Mr. English: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). If the Home Secretary is correct about the administration of the oath being a matter for the officials of the House, as the oath has not always been administered in this House, is there any reason why the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster should not be put in a position to pat down Written Questions by the oath being administered to her in her present situation?

Mr. Speaker: The oath must be taken in the House in the presence of Mr. Speaker.
I cannot remember whether I called the hon. Member for Barking (Mr. Driberg) for a supplementary question. Did I?

Mr. Driberg: You did, Mr. Speaker. But I wanted to raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Driberg to raise a point of order.

Mr. Driberg: I am grateful for both opportunities. Will you, Mr. Speaker, clarify a little further the position of hon. Members who have not yet taken the oath? I take it that they are not debarred from raising matters with Ministers by putting down Questions for Written Answer or by writing letters, as many of us did in the period that elapsed between polling day and the taking of the oath. Therefore, is not the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster entitled to communicate by letter with Ministers and to put down Questions for Written Answer, and, if she did, would they be accepted?

Mr. Speaker: I can deal only with the last part of the point of order. The conditions under which the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) exists are matters for the law. Mr. Speaker has no power to intervene or to interfere with the law. This is the rule of Britain.
The rules about the tabling of Questions are that a Member who has not taken the oath is not entitled to table Questions to Ministers. This is the practice which has been observed for many Parliaments before this one. For the convenience of the House, there are cer-

tain activities which an unsworn Member can enter into, such as voting in the contested election of the Speaker, but the tabling of Questions is not one of them. Until the House directs me that its present practice must be laid aside, I am bound to follow the precedents as upheld by my predecessors.

Sir Elwyn Jones: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Miss Devlin) is undoubtedly a Member of the House of Commons and, as such, can she not, for instance, if she were free to do so, though unsworn, participate in Committees of this honourable House? I wonder whether you would reconsider your answer about the acceptability of Parliamentary Questions from an unsworn Member? With respect, is there authority sufficient and abundant for that Ruling?

Mr. Speaker: I understand that there is authority for the Ruling that an unsworn Member cannot table Questions on the Order Paper.

Mr. John Mendelson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. In the freest Parliament in the world we can deal with one point of order and one hon. Member at once. I should have to look into the question whether an unsworn Member can take part in a Committee.

Mr. John Mendelson: A few moments ago I thought that the Home Secretary was going to reply to the question put by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). The crux of my point of order is that the Home Secretary said that the taking of the oath was a matter for the officials of the House. You, Mr. Speaker, have said several times that you cannot do anything about the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster being allowed to take the oath until instructed by the House. That obviously leads one to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman is trying to create a majority in the House to instruct you to do this. He therefore cannot get out of it by saying that it is for the officials of the House to take the decision. I wonder whether you would clear up the position for the benefit of the House.

Mr. Speaker: All the Speaker can rule is that if an hon. Member is present and


swears the oath it must be in the House in the presence of Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker has no power to interfere with the due process of law.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones). I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would be good enough to give further consideration to, and give a Ruling to the House upon, the question which has been raised of the right of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster to table Questions for Written Answer?
The relevant part of the 17th edition of Erskine May is at pages 288 and 289, which refer to the Parliamentary Oaths Act, 1866, which, as you will be aware, penalises a Member of the House from voting or sitting during a debate before being sworn, but for nothing else. Erskine May says:
But although until he has taken the oath a Member may not sit and vote, he may vacate his seat by the acceptance of the Chiltern Hundreds and is entitled to all the other privileges of a Member (but not to his salary). being regarded, both by the House and by the laws, as qualified to serve, until some other disqualification has been shown to exist.
The learned Editor of Erskine May then quotes certain instances of Members who have not been sworn being appointed to Committees, as I think you mentioned in reply to an earlier point of order. If that is right, it would appear that one of the privileges of a Member must be to table Questions for Written Answer. Either Erskine May is wrong on this point, or the hon. Member must be entitled to table Questions.
I have also examined pages 348 and 349 of Erskine May, which deal with Questions and your control of them. That part of Erskine May provides that you have a responsibility in regard to Questions, but a responsibility limited to their compliance with the rules of the House; in other words, they must not offend against the rules of the House itself. Though my researches have been as detailed as possible, I have not been able to find any other reference to putting down a Question for Written Answer in those circumstances, or to any practice or precedent in those circumstances. As there appears to be an express limitation in the Parliamentary Oaths Act which

does not include the point in question, I wonder whether, in view of the great importance of this matter to the hon. Lady's constituents, you would give further thought to it and give a Ruling to the House upon it?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member. I know that he has devoted a great deal of thought, as has Mr. Speaker and as have Mr. Speaker's advisers, to this unique circumstance in the political history of Britain. I shall look into the point raised by the hon. and learned Member, but at the moment I do not see any reason to vary the rules that I have made.

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the utmost respect to your Ruling about the present traditions of the House, is it not the case that in the past Members have been sworn otherwise than in the House in the presence of Mr. Speaker?
Second, may I raise what seems to be the important point, whether it is possible for this House to order the presence of a Member to be sworn here or, alternatively, to order its Clerk to proceed to her present position in order to swear her in?

Mr. Speaker: What has happened in the past is no concern of Mr. Speaker. Even if what happened in the past was outside the present law, the law governing Members of Parliament is that they take their oaths in this place in the presence of Mr. Speaker. Although Parliament is all-powerful, it is not powerful enough to set aside the law unless it deliberately by its own act sets aside the law. There is a law governing the taking of oaths by Members of Parliament. If by any chance during history it has been broken, that is something about which I know nothing. It would be out-with the power of the Speaker and the Clerk to do what the hon. Member suggests.

Mr. Lomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you would tell the House where the responsibility lies? Is it with you? Is it with the Home Secretary? Or is it with the officials of the House? The House is confused and we would very much like to know, through you, to whom we can put questions on this issue.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the House should be confused. The House is governed by certain orders and rules. It is the duty of Mr. Speaker to abide by those rules, and for the House to abide by them, until the House itself changes them. The House is all-powerful. It was once said that Parliament can do anything except make a man a woman. It was then even argued that if Parliament chose to do so it could do that. Mr. Speaker, however, has no power to vary the rules of the House. The House is the master of its own rules. I am sorry that there should be any confusion.

Mr. Richard: Is it not clear that there is a distinction between procuring the presence of an hon. Member in this House in order to take the oath and the actual taking of the oath in your presence in this Chamber? As far as the second proposition is concerned, is it not clear that, as the Home Secretary said, that part of it is governed by yourself and the rules of the House? With the greatest respect, it is not that part of the equation that is bothering the House this afternoon; what is much more important is procuring the presence of an hon. Member here. Again, is it not absolutely clear that the confusion that the House has been placed in this afternoon arises because the Home Secretary was wrong and because, so far, he has not had the grace or the courage to admit it? Could not we resolve this difficulty very simply by the Home Secretary giving an assurance to the House that he and the Government will take such steps as are available to them to procure the attendance of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster in the House so that she can then take the oath in accordance with rules?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for Mr. Speaker. One thing is certain; from the hon. Member's own submission, Mr. Speaker is not a procurer.

Mr. McNamara: With your leave, Mr. Speaker, may I refer back to the original Question asked and ask the Home Secretary, through you, whether in his discussions with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland and representatives of the Northern Ireland Government any decision was reached about the future holding of marches in the town of Londonderry, especially on 12th August, and whether the Home Secretary advised the Prime

Minister of Northern Ireland that it might be advisable in this case to cancel such marches?

Mr. Maudling: That obviously does not arise out of the Question.

Mr. Callaghan: Is it not clear from the series of questions asked today and on earlier occasions that the position of a Member who has been elected but is unable to carry out his or her functions has not been resolved and, as I understand it, the Committee of Privileges—I trust this is so—will look into the general proposition? I have made slips of the tongue in the past and I have always been forgiven. I have no intention of doing so now. But is it not a fact that the Home Secretary did not accurately represent the position as regards the taking of the oath? If an hon. Member is to be prevented from carrying out certain functions that are in the interests of her constituents—such as the ventilation of something done by a Minister which should be known about publicly—the question of procuring her here will become much more of a positive demand if she is not allowed to put questions on behalf of her constituents? Therefore, may I request you, respectfully, to consider how far, short of taking the oath—if she is not in a position to do that, and you are not in a position to enable her to do so—we should try to adjust our rules so that her constituents do not suffer by any arbitrary restrictions that we may put upon the exercise of her functions if by the rules of the House we are preventing her from tabling Questions to which her constituents may require answers?

Mr. Speaker: That, like so many other questions, is a question for the House and not for Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Callaghan: Any hon. Member may find himself in this position. If it is a matter for the House, Mr. Speaker, can you advise me how you suggest it should be raised at an early date in order that the constituents of any hon. Member why may be in this position can be looked after?

Mr. Speaker: First, the matter has been raised by Private Notice Question today. Secondly, one hon. Member who took it upon himself to be keenly interested in this matter has been advised by the Table as to how to prepare a Motion. There is


a Motion on the Order Paper. I understand from the Leader of the House that that Motion is going to the Committee of Privileges, as he announced last Thursday.

Mr. Callaghan: Presumably it is for the Committee of Privileges to decide whether it wishes to discuss the general issue. If it decides that it does not wish to make any recommendations on it, will the Leader of the House agree that we should have a discussion on it here?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): It may be convenient if I reply. I said in Business Questions last week that I would refer the Motion in the name of the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Latham) to the Committee on Privileges. I shall put down a Motion to that effect on the Order Paper this week. When there is an opportunity of debating that Motion, which refers to the wider question of Members as a whole who may find themselves in prison—wider than the question of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster the whole question can be considered. I shall be only too pleased, before tabling it, to have discussions through the usual channels in order to decide how best the interests of the House may be served.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman says that he has put a Motion on the Order Paper this week? Is he finding time for it to be debated this week, or does he mean that it is merely being put down this week? If we are not to have a debate on it until October, so far as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster is concerned it will be a little too late.

Mr. Whitelaw: I should like to have discussions through the usual channels about this. I shall put the Motion on the Order Paper this week and, if the usual channels agree, I shall seek an opportunity to debate it this week.

Mr. Grimond: Is it in order for further questions to be put to the Home Secretary?

Mr. Speaker: Nobody has ever been inhibited from putting questions to a Minister who has made a statement or answered a question, unless we have gone on for too long.

Mr. Grimond: I am greatly obliged to you, Mr. Speaker, for that favourable reply. Arising out of the last point of order or question, alternatively, put by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), can the Home Secretary make it clear whether, in his exchanges with the Northern Ireland Government, he put the point of view of the hon. Member's constituents in this House, quite apart from her personal position, and whether this matter will be discussed in the conversations that are to take place? I understand that the conversations are to be between the hon. Member's legal advisers and the Government, but surely the House, on behalf of the hon. Member's constituents, has a right to have its point of view taken into account in these conversations.

Mr. Maudling: That was the main point in my discussions—the interests of the hon. Member's constituents—and I have no reason to think that that matter cannot be dealt with as a result of the discussions today.

Mr. Dunn: The Home Secretary made a statement which, on the basis of the question and of your guidance, Mr. Speaker, was not correct. Will he now take the opportunity to say that he will make a statement early this week correcting anything that he may inadvertently have mis-stated?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Did the Home Secretary discuss with the Minister for Home Affairs of the Northern Ireland Government the question of an escorted visit to this House, which would enable the hon. Member to take the oath?

Mr. Maudling: I do not think that that is a question for me; but I should think it likely that it would have been raised by the hon. Member's advisers with the Northern Ireland Government.

ADJOURNMENT DEBATES

Mr. Mellish: On a point of order. This is an entirely new point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter that concerns back benchers on both sides of the House. It concerns what took place on Friday afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter), although a new Member, recognised early in the morning that


Government business would soon be dealt with and, as I understand it—and I have checked this—he contacted your office and asked for advice. He then phoned the Ministry of Technology. I have been in contact with the telephone people in the House to confirm the actual time, and I know that at 11.30 on Friday he phoned the Ministry and expressed a desire to raise a matter on the Adjournment. At 1.41 p.m., which is approximately two hours and ten minutes after he had been on the phone, he tried so to do.
Your Deputy, Mr. Speaker, was in the Chair. I must make it clear at once that there is no criticism of his Ruling. He referred, quite properly, to the Ruling given by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster on a similar occasion in 1964. He ruled, in effect, that while my hon. Friend could raise the matter, the House would deprecate his doing so because no Minister was present, and went on to say, quite properly, that Ministers must be given adequate notice to make sure that the Minister could be here.
As a consequence, there were a number of points of order which lasted for over half an hour. I repeat, because the time factor is important, that at 11.30 that morning my hon. Friend had given the Ministry notice at the private office. That is all he could do, and two-and-a-half hours later he was still trying to raise this matter. Neither the Minister of Technology nor any of his Ministers turned up or made any attempt to do so. As a result, it was in effect ruled that my hon. Friend could not go on with this debate.
That being so, this argument about adequate notice adds up to this. No hon. Member could have done more than my hon. Friend did, and credit is due to him as a new Member. But, due to the failure of the Minister and his Junior Ministers to turn up, that means that the House will not be allowed to discuss a matter of importance to back benchers. If that is carried to its logical conclusion, any Minister could take the sort of arrogant attitude that some Ministers might take.
I ask you seriously, Mr. Speaker, for the protection of hon. Members on both sides, to rule that adequate notice for a case of this kind was given and that the Minister of Technology should have made

every possible effort to come here to answer my hon. Friend, who was raising a matter which to him was of fundamental importance.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. William Whitelaw): Further to that point of order. In answer to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I recognise at once the absolute duty of the Government to ensure that Ministers are available to this House whenever they are given reasonable notice. Extra Adjournment debates after the business of the House has finished early have in the past, under all Governments sometimes caused difficulties of this sort. It should be recognised that last Friday the arrangements between the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) and the Scottish Office worked perfectly well. I regret that there was a misunderstanding thereafter on the part of the Minister of Technology. I apologise to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) for any inconvenience which he was caused over this matter.
I should like also to tell the House that, if hon. Members will give reasonable notice, as much notice as they can, to Ministers—I am not disputing about the notice in this case—and if they will be good enough to inform my office that they wish Ministers to turn up for an Adjournment debate, I will certainly see that Ministers are available for those debates.

Mr. Speaker: May I deal with one matter first? I am glad that the Opposition Chief Whip did not venture to criticise my Deputy. It would be impossible for the Chair to accept any criticism of the conduct of the Deputy in the Chair. He ruled perfectly accurately and in detail on Friday. This problem has arisen from time to time. The business set down for Friday packed up very quickly. There was a first Adjournment debate and then there was a second Adjournment debate. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) made every effort he could to secure the presence of a Minister for a third Adjournment debate. He failed. The Chair ruled, not that he had no right to speak, but that this is a place where we hear both sides and that


an ex parte debate is not a very good parliamentary exercise.
The hon. Member for Northfield accepted the advice of the Chair that it would be unwise to proceed in that way. What he did do—and what his colleagues helped him to do—was to protest against the unavailability of Ministers and, on the unavailability of Ministers, I think the Leader of the House has made a very forthcoming declaration.

Mr. Carter: Further to that point of order. May I ask the Minister of Technology—[HON MEMBERS: "No, you may not."] May I ask the Leader of the House, then, why it was that on Friday an official of the Minister's office made a public statement that I did not contact them until 12.15? As this was highly inaccurate, would he contact his colleague the Minister of Technology and ask him to issue a correct statement? As a further point, may I ask the Leader of the House to carry out an inquiry to ascertain precisely where the Ministers of Technology were?

Mr. Harold Wilson: Before the right hon. Gentleman replies, would it not be better to close this incident now by expressing the thanks of the House to the right hon. Gentleman for the very forthcoming answer he has given on what was an unfortunate circumstance, but one which we know can happen, and for his very clear assurance that we shall have his very weighty authority to see that it does not happen again?

Mr. Whitelaw: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. In answer to the hon. Member, I do not wish to prejudge what

happened last Friday at all. I hope that the House will feel that I have been thoroughly forthcoming as to the future. I think that it is much more satisfactory, on that basis, to let byegones be byegones.

Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order. You, Mr. Speaker, are here to protect minorities amongst other things, and my hon. Friend gave the Ministry at least two-and-a-half hours' notice. We should like to know whether there was a Minister in the Ministry of Technology's London office or not on Friday. If there was a Minister there and he refused to come here, clearly this was an attempt to infringe the liberty of the minority, the minority being my hon. Friend and several of us who were anxious to discuss this matter. Also, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one of his Ministers was so incompetent last Friday as to vote in both Lobbies?

Mr. Whitelaw: On the last point made by the hon. Member, I must say that I did not know that that was something which was confined to the Ministers of any one Government at any one time. On the other point, I hope that I have made my position as Leader of the House perfectly clear. I recognise at once—I hope that the House recognised this in what I said to it—that I am here to protect the interests of minorities, and that I will do. I have said that I will go into the whole circumstances of last Friday. That I am certainly doing, and I have given my personal assurance for the future, provided that hon. Members will also inform my office, which I am entitled to ask. I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will feel that everything possible has been done to ensure that the rights of minorities are protected in future.

SOUTH AFRICA (ARMS)

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House. I wish to make a statement.
Her Majesty's Government have an overriding duty to take account of present and future strategic needs, of the United Kingdom and, in that context, a particular concern for the free passage of ships in all circumstances on the vital sea routes round South Africa. It was to that end that the Simonstown Agreement was negotiated.
It is our intention to give effect to the purposes of that Agreement and we believe that, as a consequence, we should be ready to consider within that context applications for the export to South Africa of certain limited categories of arms, so long as they are for maritime defence directly related to the security of the sea routes.
The Government have made abundantly clear their fundamental disagreement with the racial policies of the South African Government. In no circumstances would there be sales to South Africa of arms for the enforcement of the policy of apartheid or internal repression.
It is on this basis that the Government have naturally been concerned to consult with Commonwealth Governments and to discuss these matters with them. A number of these Governments have not yet replied and a number request further information and discussion. At the same time the South African Government are also seeking clarification of the interpretation of the Simonstown Agreement; this will need consideration with the South African Government.
The Government propose to complete these consultations and discussions before decisions are finally taken.

Mr. M. Stewart: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for having afforded me the usual courtesy of allowing me to see the statement in advance.
Would the right hon. Gentleman answer three questions? First, is he aware that his statement is not quite as definite as it might have been—[Interruption.]—though, indeed, it may be better for that? In particular, in relation to

the phrase at the end. "The Government propose to complete these consultations and discussions before decisions are finally taken", does the word "decisions" mean decision about a particular request for arms, or does it mean a decision in principle on whether or not to supply certain categories of arms to South Africa?
Secondly, if a decision in principle has not yet been taken, will the right hon. Gentleman and his collegues remember that we were given clearly to understand that an announcement about this decision would be made to the House soon, which we all took to mean before we rise for the Summer Recess? As we have not yet had a clear statement of decision, may we be given an undertaking that no such decision will be taken while the House is in recess?
Thirdly, we are told in the right hon. Gentleman's statement that a number of Governments have not yet replied. Could we be given at any rate some indication of what Governments have replied and whether any of them—and, if so, how many—have expressed definite approval for the principle of selling arms to South Africa? In particular, could we be told whether or not the report that the Tanzanian Government have informed Her Majesty's Government that a decision to sell arms to South Africa would mean Tanzania leaving the Commonwealth is true?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I will answer first, the right hon. Gentleman's question about a statement being made to the House and no action being taken before the House has been informed of a final decision. That assurance I can give.
As to the intention in the statement, that is clear and it is the intention of the Government that we are discussing with Commonwealth countries. We are, of course, open to be influenced in our decision by their opinions, although we have stated our intention clearly. Some have replied and have said that they disagree. Some have replied and have said that they approve. [HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"] Some have said that they want further elucidation.
The reason why I am not able to make a final statement today—I believe the House would approve—is that there are 14 Commonwealth countries which


have not yet answered the question which was put to them by my right hon. Friend, and we thought, therefore, that it would be courteous and right that these countries should be given a chance to reply before Her Majesty's Government announced their final decision.

Mr. M. Stewart: Was the right hon. Gentleman about to reply to my question concerning Tanzania?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The report from Tanzania was a Press report. I think it likely that another statement will be made this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"]

Mr. M. Stewart: I must press the right hon. Gentleman on this point. True it was a Press report, but the question I was asking the right hon. Gentleman was whether it was true—that the Tanzanian Government had so informed Her Majesty's Government? Presumably the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues know the answer to that one.
I must also press the right hon. Gentleman on the other question I asked. Is he telling us that a decision in principle to supply arms to South Africa has not yet been taken and that Her Majesty's Government could be influenced on this by the representations of Commonwealth Governments? Is that the position?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Her Majesty's Government can be influenced before a final decision is taken. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh?"] That is quite clearly so, otherwise consultation would mean nothing. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] However, I would be less than frank with the House if I did not say that we have stated to the House our intention. If, however, anybody can, by argument, break us away from that intention, then, well, we shall consider all the arguments. [Interruption.]
The right hon. Gentleman then asked me about Tanzania. Communications between individual Prime Ministers of Commonwealth countries with the Prime Minister of this country are, as he knows, confidential. I think that he should wait for a statement that may be issued in Tanzania later on.

Mr. Sandys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people simply cannot stomach the sanctimonious sermonising

by Tanzania, which keeps Arab leaders indefinitely in prison and subjects them to the vilest torture, which maintains an oppressive police state in Zanzibar and which blatantly discriminates against its Asian inhabitants? Will my right hon. Friend take steps at the United Nations to expose the humbug of these double standards?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: My right hon. Friend knows that I have often protested against double standards at the United Nations and, sometimes, elsewhere. I am not prepared to comment on the policy of a Commonwealth Government.

Mr. Faulds: Has the Foreign Secretary no comprehension at all of the damage that his intention will do both to the Commonwealth and to long-term British interests in Africa? In view of the idiocy of this decision, is there no way that the House can have both the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister safely put away?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman would have to put away a few others as well because, for example, his right hon. Friends have been conducting joint exercises with the South African Navy. [Interruption.] I find that another has been arranged by the former Secretary of State for Defence for 5th August. Apparently they are prepared to have joint manœuvres—[Interruptionl.]—with French submarines but not with British ones.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: As the Government's policy is causing genuine, though I believe groundless, fears in Africa north of the Zambesi, may I ask my right hon. Friend to consider inviting Mr. Malcolm MacDonald to pay a visit to these African countries with a view to explaining the Government's policy to the Presidents of those countries?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I believe that the Government have to explain their own policy. Mr. Malcolm MacDonald has been a very good servant and very good friend of Asians and Africans alike, and I do not rule out the possibility that at some future date he may be able to serve this Government, as he has served so many Governments in his time. I gather that we are likely to debate this subject. I do not know whether there


is any more that I can add at the moment to what I have already said.

Mr. Healey: Would not the right hon. Gentleman accept that independent African countries have accepted that a very clear distinction can be drawn between the type of defence co-operation with South Africa which is involved in the Simonstown Agreement and a breaking of the ban which was imposed by the United Nations on the export and sale of arms to South Africa?
Secondly, is it not the case that of all our allies in N.A.T.O. who share our interests in the security of the Cape route and without whom we could not conceivably engage in hostilities with the Soviet Union, not one, except Portugal, believes that there is a threat to the Cape route which could be properly met by supplying arms to South Africa?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I would not accept that from the right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] I have not had time to go to the N.A.T.O. Council to discuss these matters. We can debate this subject later in the week. [Interruption.] I am entitled to my own view, which is that the co-operation of South Africa is essential for the protection of these trade routes.
What is more, the right hon. Gentleman made arrangements that the South African Navy should come under British command in the event of war. In other words, there is co-operation; and I believe that it is necessary for South Africa to have arms to acquire a navy if a British officer is to command it.
As to the United Nations, there is no breach of a United Nations resolution. The United Nations resolutions were not mandatory. They were recommendations to Governments and, when the recommendation was made to the last Conservative Government, we expressly said that we accepted it in so far as arms were concerned in relation to internal strife. We did not accept it in relation to arms for external defence.

Mr. Healey: In that case, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will not use the veto to prevent a mandatory resolution from being passed by the United Nations?
Secondly, is he telling the House that he envisages the possibility of fighting a

maritime war round the Southern Cape of South Africa without our N.A.T.O. allies? If not, has he not consulted our N.A.T.O. allies already about his decision to change a policy which the overwhelming majority of our NA.T.O. allies not only approve but are carrying out themselves?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman ought to be more accurate. The N.A.T.O. writ does not run in that area. Britain and South Africa have a defence treaty which concerns the supply of arms. He should not make these very inaccurate statements.
No British Government could say in advance that it would not veto a resolution of the United Nations; the resolution has to be seen first. I do not think that the Labour Government ever gave an assurance in advance that they would not veto a resolution.

Mr. Prentice: As the Security Council may shortly be discussing a possible mandatory resolution on this subject, to what extent are the Government prepared to hold up their final decision until that discussion has taken place? If the Government are not to be influenced at all by the proceedings in the Security Council, how do they reconcile that policy with the statement in the Gracious Speech that they support the Charter of the United Nations?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Although we have great respect for the United Nations and will consult it and take notice of its recommendations, if by any chance it were to try to put over a resolution which was blatantly against British interests the British Government would have to veto it.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I was not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart). I was not quite clear whether the right hon. Gentleman said that there would be an announcement before the House went up or, as I think, that no decision would be taken in the absence of the House being told, meaning that if there were no decision by next Friday, when the House goes up, the Government would not take a decision to supply arms to South Africa until the House came back in October. Did I understand him aright?
Secondly, he has just referred to the fact that no Government could give an assurance in advance about the veto. Is he aware that the Labour Government would never have had to answer this question—[HON. MEMBERS: "You would not answer."] I would have answered if the question had been asked—because the Labour Government were never in any doubt about their utterly loyal adherence to the United Nations resolution, which we carried out within days of taking office. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about Gibraltar?"] I am talking about the Security Council resolution on arms to South Africa. That issue was not in doubt.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman resisted the proposal that Mr. Malcolm MacDonald should be sent out to Africa to sell this policy. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in view of the distinguished record of Mr. Malcolm MacDonald on behalf of successive Governments, we would not want him to be the honest man to sell the bad penny of arms supply to South Africa? It would be an insult to all that he has done for successive Governments in this country.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I cannot say to the right hon. Gentleman that there would be no decision before the House reassembles. There would certainly be no statement. The first statement would be to the House. [Interruption.]

Mr. Faulds: He is not responsible for his words.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: He is not responsible for his words.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) was heard in quiet. He must extend the same courtesy to other hon. Members.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No Government can say when it will take a decision. A statement about the decision will be reserved for this House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hastings.

Mr. Hastings: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Harold Wilson.

Mr. Harold Wilson: That did not seem to me to be what the right hon. Gentleman said. In answer to my right hon. Friend—

Mr. Hastings: On a point of order. I may be mistaken, Mr. Speaker, but I thought that I heard you call my name.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member was not mistaken, but it is the practice of Mr. Speaker to change his mind occasionally.

Mr. Harold Wilson: I am trying to clarify what the right hon. Gentleman said. What he has just said seems to me, and apparently to many of my hon. Friends, to be in ill accord with what he said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham. My right hon. Friend asked in very clear terms for an assurance. The right hon. Gentleman gave that assurance. The assurance seemed to be that there would be no announcement, no decision—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—before the House came back.
If he is now saying that there may be a Government decision but no announcement, I must ask him something else. Will he give an assurance that if there is to be no announcement there will be no Press briefing on it? Despite what he told the House a fortnight ago in answer to my question, does the right hon. Gentleman deny that he briefed the Press, before his own Cabinet had met for the first time, that there would be arms for South Africa? Did he say that to the Press or did he not? In view of the importance of that question, will be now give an assurance to the House that there will be no decision before the House is here to hear it?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman knows more about briefing the Press than I do.

Mr. Harold Wilson: Answer the question.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If the Prime Minister will listen—[Laughter.] I hope that my right hon. Friend is listening. It is important to get the answer right.

Hon. Members: Try again.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No action in regard to the sale of arms will be taken without a statement to the House. I think


this is what I meant to say and what I hope the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart) understood. No action would be taken until a statement had been made to the House.

Mr. Healey: Mr. Healey indicated assent.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman agrees. No action as regards the sale of arms will be taken before a statement to the House.

Mr. Hastings: As we are concerned with Soviet naval infiltration of the Indian Ocean and with the position of the Commonwealth, would my right hon. Friend confirm that his decision will be all the more pertinent in view of the agreement between Mauritius and the Soviet Union on naval facilities, reached, apparently, without the knowledge of, let alone any consultation with, the British Government?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: These are matters which we should debate in the general context of the threat of the Soviet Union and the general context of the defence of the Indian Ocean.

Mr. James Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of discussions with Commonwealth Governments. Is he fully aware of the loathing and disgust which the Heads of African States feel for the policy of Her Majesty's Government in sending arms, or even thinking of sending arms, to South Africa? Will he not think again about sending one of his colleagues from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to talk with Commonwealth Heads of State, particularly Tanzania and Zambia, which are so closely involved and which are so near to South Africa?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This may happen as part of our programme of explanation.

Sir F. Bennett: Could my right hon. Friend elaborate on an earlier answer he gave? Did I hear him say that in fact Her Majesty's Government had committed this country to join in naval manoeuvres with the South African Navy starting on 5th August? If there should be such a mockery about the possibility of a Soviet threat in the South Atlantic to

our trade routes, for what purpose were those manoeuvres to be carried out?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: Right hon. Members of the Opposition should answer that question because they agreed to the manoeuvres. Very simply, it would be for some purpose of security.

Mr. David Steel: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that many Governments have represented that a decision to sell arms to South Africa would be the biggest blunder in British foreign policy since Suez? Will he confirm that many Governments differ about the strategic judgment that has been made and that the increase in Communist influence in the rest of Africa would be very substantial following such a decision?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I do not think there is a single Government which does not admit that it is the right of this Government to decide her own defence policy. Some do not like what may be the final decision, but for different reasons, and some want more explanations.

Mr. Braine: In order that this issue should be clarified, will my right hon. Friend say whether it is not a fact when the party opposite were in power it declared more than once that the Simonstown Agreement was vital to British maritime interests? If that Agreement is vital to safeguard British maritime interests, is it not utter hypocrisy that we should deny to the South Africans capacity to carry out their part of the joint Agreement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: This is one of the matters we could debate. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has talked about sharing the defence of these routes with the South African Government. Sharing must mean something.

Mr. John Morris: Does the statement made by the Foreign Secretary that no action would be taken before a statement is made to the House mean that no contracts will be entered into and no heads of agreement and no sales representative go to South Africa with the blessing of the Minister of Defence? Does the statement mean that there will be


none of these things until a statement has been made to the House?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: In respect of the sale of arms, no licences would be issued or anything of the sort before a statement.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman gave, I think, a clear assurance which I accepted. It is not a question of licences for contracts which have been entered into. Will he now say that before the House comes back we will be informed, unless there is a statement made this week, and that the South African Government will not be told in principle that Her Majesty's Government intend to supply arms?
I thought that he gave an answer that seemed satisfactory about this question. He said "no action", but it is action to tell the South African Government that this Government will supply the arms requested. Will the right hon. Gentleman say that there will be no decision in principle to inform the South African Government, or anyone else, before the House reassembles and we can hear that announcement?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I have said that no action will be taken and I say no action before a statement is made to the House. I think that is fair. The South African Government can read this statement like anyone else.

Mr. Iremonger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we to debate all this on Wednesday as well?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question for the Chair. The Chair is as ignorant on that as hon. Members. Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Harold Wilson: It is important to get this clear before Wednesday, before the House rises for the Recess. The right hon. Gentleman gives alternatively good and alternatively bad replies. We want to know where he stands. Apparently there were to be only export licences issued. When I questioned him he said that no action would be taken, but it would be action, I hope he will agree, if a decision were taken in principle to tell the South African Government that this Government will entertain their shopping list and supply items on it which the previous Government refused to supply. When

he says "action", will he confirm that there will be no supply to South Africa before the House is sitting and able to receive a statement on such a change?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman surely understands that no Government can be limited as to the time it takes to make a decision. What I said, and said quite properly, is that no action will be taken until I have made another statement to the House.

Mr. Wilson: I am sorry to have to press the right hon. Gentleman, but he has given so many apparently contradictory replies, despite the fact that the Prime Minister is shaking his head. He has shaken his head on alternative replies and we want to know what are the real ones. It is of course understood that a Government can take a decision and keep it to itself before it is time to give it to the House. I accept what the right hon. Gentleman said, but he said that no action will be taken before the House comes back. It is action to inform the South African Government that Her Majesty's Government will entertain arms supplies, so does the right hon. Gentleman's answer mean that, whatever secret decision the Government take and have in their bosoms, there will be no action taken in respect of communications to other Governments, including the South African, of a decision to supply arms to South Africa? Can we have a clear answer for the first time this afternoon?

Sir A. Douglas-Home: No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman is in fact asking me practically not to consult with Commonwealth countries, for example—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] We must reserve the right to discuss with other countries, with Commonwealth countries and with South Africa. I think I cannot go further than to say that we will certainly come to this House before action is taken. That surely is the right place to make the next statement.

Mr. M. Stewart: It was clear from the answers the right hon. Gentleman gave me that the Government have at present an intention to supply certain arms to South Africa, but the right hon. Gentleman went on to make it clear that that intention could be modified or changed as a result of the consultations proceeding and they had not gone from


intention to decision in principle. What the right hon. Gentleman is being asked now is quite simple. If they do reach a decision in principle do they undertake not to communicate that decision to anyone until they come to their final decision—not to communicate it to the South African Government before they have made it known to this House? That is the question.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: When a final decision is taken I will take the earliest opportunity to announce that final decision to this House. No Government can bind itself—

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

Mr. M. Stewart: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that when he had taken the final decision he would take an early opportunity to tell this House, but does he give us an undertaking or not that he will not have told the South African Government either?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: No more than I could give the right hon. Gentleman an undertaking that I would not tell some of our Commonwealth friends.

Mr. Harold Wilson: The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.] We had a perfectly satisfactory answer from the right hon. Gentleman a quarter of an hour ago, since when he had diminished it and derogated from it, but at least he has promised that there will be no action before the House is told. Does that cover an assurance by him that there will be no veto in the United Nations on the Security Council?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: We do not know when the United Nations is to meet. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am going to answer. If the Prime Minister would listen for a change instead of carrying on a running commentary—[Laughter.] If the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption]

Mr. Molloy: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I suspect what the point of order is about. Mr. Molloy.

Mr. Molloy: As we see that the Foreign Secretary is in some difficulty, would it help him if we were all to change sides?

Mr. Speaker: I suspected that that was the bogus point of order. The Foreign Secretary.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I think that it is important to get this matter clear. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I therefore repeat this once more, because the Leader of the Opposition has asked that this should be clarified. There will be no action before a statement is brought to the House and I will take the earliest opportunity that I can of making such a statement. We cannot bind ourselves not to take such a decision. We cannot bind ourselves that other people will not be told about the decision, because what about our Commonwealth friends? They may easily want to know. So the first statement will be made to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Faulds: What a shower.

Mr. Emery: On a point of order. Will you consider, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Faulds: What a shower.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds) cannot contain himself, I will have to ask him to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you consider the fact that during questions on this statement, you have seen fit—at no time do I wish to question your right to recognise whoever you wish—to call three separate members of the Opposition Front Bench, some as many as four separate times, all to put a large number of varying questions. This seems to be a greater amount of questioning from the Opposition Front Bench, which has precluded a number of other hon. Members on the back benches from being able to put questions to the Foreign Secretary. Would you consider that this should not be a principle on which you would act when further statements are made by Ministers?

Mr. Longden: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will deal with the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Longden) next.
What the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) has said is a fact. There were a large number of questions from


the Opposition Front Bench, I imagine because the Opposition Front Bench thought that the matter was important. It is not within the power of Mr. Speaker to shoot down either the Government Front Bench or the Opposition Front Bench, even if he were tempted to from time to time.

Mr. Longden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think I heard you calling me earlier. It is rather hard to be kept out by seven Members of the Opposition Front Bench.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have full sympathy with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Maclennan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the difficulty that, although three members of the Opposition Front Bench spoke with one voice on this issue, the Foreign Secretary spoke with at least three voices?

Mr. Speaker: That is most ingenious, but not a point of order.

Orders of the Day — EMERGENCY POWERS

Order read for consideration of Her Majesty's Message [16th July].

Message from Her Majesty read:

The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act, 1964, having enacted that if it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by Proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists: and the present stoppage of work among persons employed in the ports having, in Her Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act of 1920 as so amended:

Her Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation dated the 16th day of July, 1970 and made in pursuance of the said Act of 1920, as so amended, to declare that a state of emergency exists.

4.46 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Reginald Maudling): I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty deems it proper by Proclamation, made in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, and dated 16th July 1970, to declare that a state of emergency exists.
May I begin by asking your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter of order? Will you tell us whether the debate on the Address to Her Majesty and the Emergency Regulations should on this occasion be taken together?

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps it would help the House if I explained that the House is debating a Motion of thanks to Her Majesty. On previous occasions the Chair has allowed the debate to be sufficiently wide to embrace the Regulations and to include the causes which have led up to the Regulations and the strike itself.
I would point out to the House, however, that the Address is not exempted business and that if it is to be obtained tonight it must be voted on no later than


ten o'clock, but that under the Standing Orders debate on the Regulations may be continued after ten o'clock. Up to ten o'clock, then, if the House follows my guidance, anything connected with the Regulations and with the events leading up to them may be discussed. After ten o'clock, the debate, should it continue, will be narrowed to the Regulations.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You say that the debate on the Regulations may be carried on after ten o'clock. Am I right in saying that the vote could come at 11.30 p.m.?

Mr. Speaker: The second vote. If there were a vote on the Address, there would be a vote at ten o'clock. If there were a vote on the Regulations, that would be governed by Standing Orders one and a half hours later. I hope that that is clear.

Mr. Maudling: May I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the guidance you have given us. It means that our debate today will take a slightly different form from that in May, 1966, when both debates were taken together, but I am sure that it is for the convenience of the House to do today as you have suggested.
I have looked back at what happened in the debate on 26th May, 1966. The then Home Secretary, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, moved the Address and the Regulation in a commendably brief speech in the course of which he said:
I do not propose now to review the course of events leading up to the strike by the National Union of Seamen, nor the efforts which have been made and which will still be made to settle the dispute. What the House will be concerned with today are the measures which the Government are taking to deal with the grave situation which now confronts us."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th May, 1966; Vol. 729, c. 737–8.]
This is the precedent of the then Home Secretary in 1966. I think that it is a good precedent and I intend to follow it.
I am sure that the House wishes that anything we say on this serious matter this afternoon should in no way prejudice as early a settlement as possible. For that reason, I do not propose now to discuss the rights and wrongs of the dispute which led to the very serious stop-

page of work in the docks. Indeed, I believe that, in view of the decision to set up a court of inquiry which has been announced, it would not be helpful for me to enter into a discussion of the issues which the court will be considering.
What I believe the House will be concerned with today, as it was in 1966, are the measures which the Government are taking to deal with the grave situation which now confronts us. As you have said, Mr. Speaker, for the convenience of the House we shall be dealing separately with the allied Motion relating to the Regulations. I propose now to describe briefly what has been done and what we propose in general to do under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920. No doubt hon. Members will wish to raise points of technical and legal detail during the debate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, who will speak later, will be glad to deal with any points which hon. Members raise.
As the House knows, the Proclamation of Emergency was made on Thursday, 16th July, and on the same day the Emergency Regulations, 1970, were made; they were laid before Parliament the following day and came into operation on 18th July. Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act provides that
if at any time it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, Her Majesty may, by proclamation … declare that a state of emergency exists".
I am sure that in the present circumstances, with the threat of a full-scale docks strike and the total cessation of movement of goods in and out of this country, the Government had no option but to advise Her Majesty that the time had come for a Proclamation to be made.
If Parliament approves these Regulations today, they will continue in operation for so long as the Proclamation of Emergency continues. Under Section 1 of the 1920 Act, this is for one calendar month only. If, unfortunately, the situation were not to be resolved within that time, the declaration of the emergency could be extended by a further proclamation, equally subject to further approval by Parliament.
The Regulations with which we are concerned have, of necessity, been drafted to cover a wide variety of situations. I should make it clear right away that our purpose in asking for these powers now is to ensure that we should have them available without delay should it become necessary to use them. There will be no question of any unnecessary use of these Regulations and the powers which have been taken to deal with the emergency will, of course, be ended as soon as the emergency itself ends. But I must repeat our determination to carry out our duty as a Government to maintain essential services and supplies by whatever means are necessary.
At the moment, the only power which has been exercised is that in Regulation 1(4) to appoint port emergency committees to exercise day-to-day control of operations at the major ports. These committees have the duty of assessing the situation in their respective ports and of asking for any help which they may need.
A total of 38 Regulations sounds a pretty massive number and, of course, it is a complicated assortment of powers. I said a moment ago that the powers which they confer are indeed wide, but I hope that now that the House has had an opportunity to study the Regulations it will be seen that they are, in practice—and this is in accordance with previous practice—no wider than is necessary for their purpose. It will be observed that they are substantially the same as those introduced by the Labour Government during the seamen's strike of 1966, although they have been modified in certain respects.
I do not wish to weary the House by going through each Regulation in detail, but I should make some general explanation. The first three Regulations relate to the control of ports and dock labour. Regulation 1 contains a new provision under which ships can be directed to leave port to avoid congestion, and the movement of tugs and other harbour craft and floating apparatus can also be directed.
Regulation 2 is new compared with the Regulations of 1966. It enables any ship or equipment in a port to be moved if the persons directed to take such action under Regulation 1 fail to do so. It also

enables the cost of the operation to be recovered from those who fail to comply with the original direction.
The next nine Regulations relate to the relaxation of certain existing restrictions on road transport. Regulation 12 is new and provides for the relaxation of the Regulations concerning the conveyance by road of petroleum spirit and certain other dangerous substances.
Regulations 13 to 26 relax obligations and restrictions as to public services and facilities, enable the appropriate Ministers to regulate the distribution of food and animal feeding stuffs; the supply and distribution of fuel; the prices of food and animal feeding stuffs; and transport services. They also contain powers of requisition.
Regulation 22 is new and relates to the transport of passengers by road and makes provision, analogous to that made by Regulation 21 in relation to the transport of goods by road, under which directions may be given to public service vehicle operators.
Regulation 24, which relates to transport by sea, has been extended to cover essential passengers as well as cargo on all United Kingdom registered ships, instead of home trade ships as previously, to provide a wider range of ships available for essential movements.
Regulation 19 repeats the provisions of Regulation 18 of the 1966 Regulations which empowers my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to provide by order for regulating maximum food prices. This Regulation has on this occasion been extended to cover animal feeding stuffs as well. The Government hope that it will not be necessary to use this power, but they are determined that the community shall not be exploited by those who might wish to exploit the situation for their own personal interests.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food met representatives of the trade last Friday and impressed upon them the importance of keeping prices steady. At the same time, he made it clear that the Government will be prepared, if necessary, to take resolute action. We would prefer to leave this problem to the good sense of traders, reinforced by the good sense


of the shopping public. But we now have the powers and if there is any exploitation my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture will not hesitate to use them. I remind the House that without the Proclamation and the Regulations we could not have had these powers available to us.

Mr. James Callaghan: The House will be glad to give the powers to the Government, but may we have some indication of the machinery which will be available to enforce them? It is all very well to have them, but can they be used—or are they just a bluff?

Mr. Maudling: The powers can be used. The Minister of Agriculture, through the officials in his Department, can deal with major problems of exploitation which may arise. Certainly that is our intention.

Mr. Callaghan: How?

Mr. Maudling: By imposing maximum prices to avoid exploitation through excessive increases in prices which are not justified. The only way in which one can deal with exploitation is by imposing maximum food prices by regulation, which we are given power to do.

Mr. Callaghan: It is all very well to proclaim a maximum price, but how can it be enforced?

Mr. Maudling: Through the normal Government machinery when any regulation is enforced.
Other regulations repeat the provisions of the 1966 Regulations for the maintenance of law and order and for the enforcement of the Regulations.
While we must all hope that only the most limited use of these powers will be necessary and that full co-operation will be given by all those to whom we shall look for assistance, there are necessarily provisions for the enforcement of the Regulations. However, I wish to make it absolutely clear that, as provided for in Section 2 of the Act of 1920 and in Regulation 34 of those before us today, it is not an offence for any person or persons to take part in a strike, or peacefully to persuade any other person to take part in it.
These Regulations are not directed against the strikers, the unions or the

employers involved in the dispute. They are intended solely and exclusively to protect the life of the community. They are not a means of bringing pressure to bear on either of the parties in the dispute. The Government are acting to discharge their responsibility to the nation to secure the maintenance of the essentials of life for the community at large. I hope that the House will support the Government's actions and will feel, as I do, that in this very troublesome situation the wisest course is for nothing to be said which could possibly exacerbate a position already fraught with great difficulties for the country.

4.59 p.m.

Mrs. Barbara Castle: We shall be debating two Motions during the day but only the first has so far been moved. Therefore, only one Motion has been spoken to—or, at least, so one would have assumed. The Home Secretary, however, has not referred to the first Motion but has based all his arguments on the second Motion, yet to be moved, dealing with the Emergency Regulations. In doing so, the Home Secretary quoted in aid the precedent of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) when he was Home Secretary in 1966.
On previous occasions, however, when the House has, unhappily had to debate similar situations, the practice which it has adopted for dealing with them has varied. The Motions can be discussed and voted on separately or there can be agreement through the usual channels to take the two Motions together, even though they may be voted on in different ways. That was what happened in 1966 when my right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary made it clear that that had been done by agreement between both sides of the House.
At the same time, however, the then right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone, who is now Lord Chancellor, spoke for the Opposition and pointed out that there was no uniform practice in these matters, that it was entirely a matter for the convenience of the House and that the agreement of the Opposition to debate the two Motions together should not be taken as meaning


that there should be a combined debate on every occasion.
At that time, Mr. Speaker ruled that the debate could range widely. The two Motions were being taken together and he said that the debate, as he has said again today, could take place on the Regulations, the causes which led up to them and the strike itself. Indeed, some hon. Members opposite, who at that time were in opposition, seized the opportunity to embark upon far-ranging discussion of the Government's economic policy and some fairly widely-based attacks. I certainly do not intend to do that this afternoon or to say anything which might protract the strike.
We on this side have asked for, and we have made it clear through the usual channels that we wanted, two separate debates and that we wanted the Motions to be moved and spoken to separately. I therefore intend to concentrate on the first Motion, which thanks Her Majesty for the proclamation of the emergency. We are doing this because we believe that it will be for the convenience of the House and will help towards an earlier solution to the strike if we spend a little time this afternoon discussing why we find ourselves in this situation.

Mr. J. Grimond: The right hon. Lady has questioned the form of the debate. I understood the Home Secretary to say that the whole debate would be replied to by the Attorney-General, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not here. Are we to have two replies, or what will be the form?

Mr. Maudling: I said that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General hoped to speak later this evening, but meanwhile my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be answering this debate before it ends at 10 o'clock. There will then be a further debate, of which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will be in charge. I said that he would be speaking later at the end of the second debate.

Mrs. Castle: The situation has been confused by the fact that although we are clearly having two separate debates, and despite the fact that the Regulations have not yet been moved, the Chair has

ruled that there will be two votes, one at 10 o'clock and the other at 11.30, but that in the meantime the debate can range widely. I should like to clarify the position a little more by asking the Home Secretary whether the Attorney-General will introduce the debate on the Regulations.

Mr. Maudling: He will probably briefly introduce the debate on the Regulations and answer questions on them at the end of that debate. My hon. Friend the Minister of State will be replying to the first debate. That, I understood, was what the Opposition wanted.

Mrs. Castle: There is no reason why this debate should not end earlier than 10 o'clock and the House then go on to a more detailed examination of the Regulations.
I am trying to make it clear that there are no binding precedents on the way that we handle these situations. We are entirely free to consult the convenience of the House about whether we have two debates or one. We have asked for and obtained two separate debates. I wish, therefore, to speak to the Motion which the Home Secretary has moved, although he did not speak to it himself and he has pleaded in aid and as an excuse the action of his predecessor—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Lady, but there seems to be confusion about what we are debating. It is in order to discuss both Motions now, but after the vote is taken on the first Motion the debate which follows must be limited to the terms of the second Motion.

Mrs. Castle: I understand that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Chair has made its position clear. The Home Secretary, however, has not made the Government's position clear, because he has moved one Motion and spoken to the other. I well understand why he wished to do that, because he does not find it convenient for the House to discuss why we find ourselves in this situation today. We on this side find it convenient to discuss it; we claim our right to do so and we shall be in order in doing so.
I should like to make it clear at the outset that when a Government have


taken the serious step of declaring that an emergency exists and have taken emergency powers—

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order. I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend, but it seems to me to be a very strange situation that when we are to discuss the first Motion and then the Regulations, the Attorney-General is not present. I fail to understand—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member knows that the Chair has no control over who is present. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Heffer: May I therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, direct my question to the Leader of the House?

Mr. Joel Barnett: He is not here.

Mr. Heffer: Well, to somebody on the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is out of order. He cannot pursue that point.

Mr. Heffer: It is scandalous.

Mrs. Castle: I share my hon. Friend's view that the Government's behaviour is rather extraordinary. It does not seem to be the Government's day. This abrasive, new style of efficient organisation does not yet seem to have penetrated into the conduct of the business of the House. [Interruption.] I suggest that we get on. We have a lot of points to cover. I am sure that my hon. Friends behind me will have a chance of developing the points which they are trying to make through me, and I would far rather that they had time to make them direct to the Government, who must be held accountable to answer them.
I hope that the Government will be made accountable this afternoon, because we have made it clear that we did not wish today to follow the procedure which was followed in 1966. We wished to have two separate debates. We wished the first Motion to be moved and discussed separately. We were told by the Home Secretary that he would not speak to that Motion. He then spoke to the second Motion, which has not yet been

moved, and he said that the Attorney-General would answer any points that we raised on the second Motion. The Attorney-General, however, is not even here to hear what is said. It is extraordinary behaviour by the Government.
I wanted to make it clear at the outset that where a Government have taken the serious step of declaring an emergency and taking emergency powers, they must be assumed to have come to the conclusion that those powers were necessary to preserve the essential life of the community. As none of us in the House would wish to jeopardise the essential needs of the community, we shall not challenge the Government's decisions today in the Division Lobby. None the less, a decision to declare an emergency and to take emergency powers is a very serious decision indeed, and it is not to be embarked on lightly, just as a national dock strike is not to be embarked on lightly. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said last Thursday, emergency Regulations
give an all-embracing grip by the State on every citizen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1736.]
Moreover, even with the help of these emergency powers the Government are not going to be able to prevent this strike from doing serious damage to the economic life of the community.
Therefore, it seemed to us entirely right that we should give the Government this afternoon the chance to explain how and why it is that we have drifted into the first official national dock strike since 1926 and to ask the Government how they see both the strike and the emergency being brought to an end, because we can all have our searching examination of the Regulations in detail, we can all make our serious speeches about wanting to preserve the life of the community in the emergency, but the simple fact is that emergency powers in themselves do not solve anything, and, in the end, strikes can be settled in one way only, and that is, round the negotiating table.
What alarms us this afternoon is, that there was a negotiating table, and it seemed at one point as if a solution to the threatened strike was going to be found, and certainly the union involved was anxious for a settlement to be found, but because the solution on which so


many hopes had been pinned was rejected by the dockers' committee by a small—a very small—majority, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) has kept on stressing to us, because that solution was rejected by a small majority, we are now in a situation in which negotiations have come to a full stop. They have come to a full stop first and foremost, because the employers have ruled out one subject of discussion entirely, and that is one subject in which the other party is interested. In other words, the employers have said, "We will not discuss the union's claim". Secondly, because the employers have taken what we can only call the high-handed and Victorian attitude of saying, "Oh, you are naughty boys, and we refuse to talk while the strike goes on". I would suggest that it must be unique in the history of these emergency situations for the Government to come down to this House and say, "There is a national crisis because the talks have stopped" when the union concerned is pleading to be allowed to continue those talks.
Indeed, anybody who has read, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Mitcham has read many times, the statement issued by the Transport and General Workers' Union on 16th July will know that we are conducting a debate this afternoon about the existence of a national emergency against a background such as there can never have been before in a similar situation, against a background, for instance, of the union saying,
The Transport and General Workers' Union believes that the national dock strike could be settled within days, perhaps hours, if the employers will open negotiations.
And yet the Home Secretary comes down here and asks us to take it on the nod that there is a national emergency. He does not even want to discuss for a moment whether the emergency might have been avoidable. He does not give any indication of the Government's expectation of how long it will last—and a national dock strike strikes at the very life of the nation. He has given us no indication how long the Government think it will last, he has given us no glimmer of a clue how the Government think that the emergency can be brought to an

end, and here we have the union which is involved saying that it believes that the dock strike could be settled within days or perhaps hours if the employers opened negotiations.
It goes on to say that it
does not want this strike to last a moment longer than it need".
It goes on to say:
It is quite untrue, and harmful to suggest that this claim represents an attempt to escalate piece-work prices. The union says this without qualification, and if there is any doubt about it, then the place to resolve the matter is over the negotiating table now. Without delay.
Therefore, I think we have a right as a House, without wanting to enter into the rights or wrongs of the claim or the counter-offer put forward by the other side, to echo the words of the Transport and General Workers' Union that if its arguments are contested, then the place to find out what are the facts is round the negotiating table.

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend has made a point about the Attorney-General not being present. Would she not agree, in view of what she has just said about the negotiations, that, as the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity chaired those negotiations, it is a bad thing that he is not to speak in the debate? How, therefore, can we get the full facts surrounding the points my right hon. Friend has raised?

Mrs. Castle: I share my hon. Friend's regret that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to take part in this debate. I would say again that in asking for two separate debates, and in asking that the two debates should be kept separate, we gave the right hon. Gentleman a very clear opportunity to participate. It may be that, having listened to our arguments, he may yet be prevailed upon to intervene, because it is clearly rather remarkable that we have not been told a word—not a word—about the court of inquiry. Not a word. My heavens, at least that was mentioned in 1966, and, of course, it was because the court of inquiry had been set up that there was acceptance of the need for a combined debate, but the right hon. Gentleman has not even done the House the courtesy of mentioning that a court of inquiry exists.

Mr. Maudling: I indeed, said earlier that because of the decision to set up


the court of inquiry it would not be helpful to enter into discussion of the issues the court of inquiry would be considering. May I say to the right hon. Lady that I think it would not be helpful to her case to enter into the issues the court of inquiry will be considering?

Mrs. Castle: Yes, but I thought that, en passant, the right hon. Gentleman could just have mentioned it. Surely, I should have thought, he, or someone in the Government participating in the debate, ought to have been prepared to discuss very seriously with the House the timetable of the court of inquiry, its methods of procedure, how the Government see it playing its part in the solution of this emergency.
Of course, we welcome the setting up of the court of inquiry, and the union and the employers have welcomed it. We all hope and believe that both sides will co-operate very eagerly in the court of inquiry, but I think the House has a right to ask what does a court of inquiry mean? First of all, it means that there is still something to talk about. That is why it has been set up. Secondly, it means that the union's claim, which the employers refused to discuss, is back on the agenda. It has now become a matter which has to be discussed, and only omitted in the time between the emergency was declared and the court of inquiry was set up. Finally, although we do not know when it will be that the court of inquiry will report—we have been given no indication this afternoon whether it will be next week or by the end of this week that we shall get a report—but whenever it does report negotiations on the basis of the report will have to be resumed. Or will they? This is another question I think the House ought to ask this afternoon. Are the employers going to say then that they will not negotiate as long as the strike continues? If so, what on earth will have been the use of having had the court of inquiry and its report?
Therefore, the court of inquiry can only help us out of this emergency by doing the thing the employers said they would never do, which they refused to do, and that is, to discuss the union's claim about basic rates and to negotiate while the strike is going on. In the meantime, we shall have had—what?—10 days or a fortnight more—we do not know—of

economic disruption which might have been unnecessary.
Our complaint is that, in pursuit of what we have been told is to be a new style of non-conciliation by the Department of Employment and Productivity the country is in an emergency and, unless fuller information is given of how the court of inquiry is to be conducted and what else the Government intend to do in the meantime, we have no clear idea of when we shall get out of the emergency.
I am the first to pay tribute to the painstaking work which the right hon. Member for Mitcham has put in and the efforts he has made to try to avoid the strike on the basis of his concept of his role, namely, to help the two sides to get a clearer idea of each other's case. I agree with him 100 per cent. that this is the essential first step in the conciliation process. Clarification in itself will often bring a solution. Nobody can deny that the right hon. Gentleman has discharged that part of his task with tremendous ability and dedication. We were all sorry when his efforts failed, and I think he will agree that, while the talks were going on, my right hon. Friends and I carefully refrained from doing or saying anything that might tip the scales against the delicate balancing act which he was trying to achieve.
We did not comment, and I do not want to do so now, on the merits of the union's claim. Indeed, I have gone out of my way to assure the right hon. Gentleman that we believe it is imperative that the settlement reached should not jeopardise the implementation of Stage II of the Devlin modernisation scheme. Why should we want to jeopardise it? The Devlin Committee was our creation, not the creation of the Conservatives. Before another Tory myth is created, the myth that before the present Government came into office all was drift, restrictive practices and inflationary settlements, let us spend a moment putting the record straight.
The truth is that the real leadership and the solution of the problems of the docks have come from Labour Governments. The Labour Minister of Labour, George Isaacs, egged on and inspired by Ernest Bevin, introduced the dock labour scheme in 1947 and started us on the road to the full decasualisation of which Ernest Bevin dreamed. Another Labour


Minister of Labour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), set up the Devlin Committee in October, 1964, and acted promptly on its report by introducing the Docks and Harbours Act, 1966, which took decasualisation well beyond the point at which it had started 20 years earlier. Under a Labour Government manpower in the docks fell from 60,000 to 46,000 as a result of productivity schemes.
The right hon. Member for Mitcham told us recently at Question Time that the cost of labour per ton moved through the docks is about the same now as it was four years ago, despite the increase in wages about which we have been told so much—a very high record of productivity, as he was the first to admit. A Labour Government found the money for modernising the physical structure of our ports and docks which had been neglected for so long under our Conservative predecessors. Under a Labour Government investment in the ports rose from an average level of £18 million in 1964 to £50 million in 1969.
While we are about it, there is another myth which we should destroy—it is relevant to our debate this afternoon and I have no doubt that we shall hear about it from back benchers opposite—the myth that the Leader of the Opposition when he was Prime Minister always rushed into strike situations to buy peace through inflationary settlements. This story has been propagated in some newspapers during the last few days. "What a salutary contrast", we are told, "between the stern stonewalling of the right hon. Member for Mitcham and the inflationary settlements of the previous Prime Minister".
These attacks come ill from newspapers which were only too glad when the previous Prime Minister intervened to prevent a protracted national newspaper strike that would have meant the death of three or four national newspapers. I know of the anxieties and desires of the Newspaper Proprietors' Association at that time, because the Association came to see me to beg for the Prime Minister to intervene. The Prime Minister intervened successfully to carry out the job which I am saying the right hon. Member for Mitcham should have carried out, the job of bringing the two sides to-

gether and keeping them together until a settlement was reached. There was no question of the then Prime Minister negotiating the sums involved or the details of the settlement; he simply made sure that the procedure of conciliation worked. The parties have been brought together, they worked out the details of the best settlement the newspaper industry had had for a long time, leading the way to a common wages structure which alone can save our newspaper industry from total disaster.
What concerns us this afternoon is that the right hon. Member for Mitcham seemed to accept so blandly the decision of the employers to break off the talks. I say to him seriously, in all good will, imagine if the decision had been the other way round and the union had said, "We do not care what is the effect of a national dock strike on the economy, we are going ahead and we refuse to talk"? Would the right hon. Member for Mitcham have told the union that it was acting contrary to the national interest? Had I been in his job, if the union behaved like that I would have told the union that this was not the proper behaviour in the second half of the twentieth century.
It is not true that an agreed settlement is inevitably an inflationary one, and that the only way to cure inflation is for employers to take a tough line and beat the unions to their knees. I cannot imagine any approach more likely to exacerbate industrial relations, to produce continuing strikes and continuing damage to the national economy.
There has been in certain quarters far too much talk about what is needed being not a settlement but a showdown. I exonerate the right hon. Member for Mitcham from that attitude, which is not typical of him. But let us not forget that Mr. Tonge of the port employers is on record in the Financial Times as saying when the talks broke off, "If there is to be a crunch, it had better be on this issue."
In the Sunday Telegraph of 12th July Peter Paterson said:
Mr. Carr has gone through the motions of calling both sides to the Department of Employment and Productivity to see whether conciliation is possible, but both unions and employers believe the Government is already committed to letting the unions sweat it out.


On the same day the Sunday Telegraph carried an approving leading article to the same effect:
Under Mr. Wilson there would have been a fever of activity in Downing Street with the Prime Minister personally seeking to avoid a showdown. But perhaps a showdown is precisely what Mr. Heath wants.
Therefore, we have grounds for genuine anxiety. We have a right to hear from the Government their approach to the causes of the emergency and to its cure.
From my experience of industrial relations over the past two years, which have had their stormy rides and trouble spots, it is a profound truth that the vast majority of strikes do not end, or ought not to end in victory for either side. I have never found a strike where there have not been faults on both sides which have contributed to the dispute. If the Government wish us to vote these emergency powers so that they can have a showdown with the unions, then they cannot expect us to take on the normal mood for these occasions.
There is still time for the Government to rectify the situation. I should like somebody from the Government Front Bench to say, before the debate progresses very much further, how they see the work of the court of inquiry continuing. What pledges are they prepared to give to see that the premature, indiscriminate and thoughtless use of troops does not lead us to an extension of this emergency?
The court of inquiry is meeting this afternoon. I ask the Government to ensure that the court loses no time in taking evidence from both sides. Will the right hon. Gentleman see that it remains virtually in continuous session until it has found an answer to the situation? After all, he and his officials in the Department of Employment and Productivity and both unions and employers spent many wearisome hours non-stop, sacrificing food and sleep in an effort to avoid the strike. May we have an undertaking that the court of inquiry will conduct its affairs with the same sense of urgency?
Even though the court of inquiry is sitting, do the Government agree that there is no reason why talks should not take place in parallel with the court of inquiry. Talks between the two sides could go on without a moment being

lost by the court in its more thorough examination of the facts. This has happened before. It happened in the Liverpool strike in 1967 when the Scamp inquiry was sitting. That did not mean that talks could not take place. From what I read in the Press I understand that the Transport and General Workers' Union is ready to start talks with the employers at any moment, court of inquiry or no court of inquiry. Will the right hon. Gentleman use all his influence with the employers to see that they respond? If his influence is not great enough, will he bring in the Prime Minister to tell the port employers what a Labour Prime Minister told both sides in a similarly urgent situation, namely that they must meet and must talk?
Will the Government give a pledge this afternoon that they will make every effort to see that the troops are not used? So far this has been a very good-natured strike. Everybody who has moved about the docks and talked with dockers about the situation in particular ports—

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the question of the troops—

Mrs. Castle: I have not yet left the question.

Mr. Atkinson: —will she give an assurance that she will vote against the use of troops?

Mrs. Castle: No. I have not finished what I was going to say about the troops. I will come in a moment to my hon. Friend's point. As I was saying, everybody who has been in touch with the dockers during these first days of the dispute has testified that there is no bloody-mindedness there. In fact, there has been a quite exceptional willingness by dockers to accept that unusual situations involving cargo must be dealt with leniently and tolerantly. The movement of atomic waste, for instance, has been readily agreed, because it is in the national interest. There has been a willingness to make sure that remote islands have been kept supplied. Will the Government build upon this? If we are talking about an emergency and bringing it to an end, this is the most precious asset we have and nothing must be done under the powers to dissipate it.
Will the Government give the House an undertaking that where there is a particularly urgent cargo—perishable cargo, for instance, which must be moved—the Secretary of State will first go to the Transport and General Workers' Union and ask Mr. Jack Jones whether the union is willing to see that that cargo should be moved by normal means before rushing in the troops? I believe that more should have been said during the Home Secretary's speech about the Government's concept of using the troops. The employers themselves are anxious that the Government should not clumsily rush in with the military arm where a little more patience and closer contact with the unions, indeed a greater friendliness towards the unions, could have produced a very much preferable alternative.
The Sunday Telegraph has said that the dock strike is the Government's first major test. It has echoed the views of many hon. Gentlemen opposite who have dared to get up during Question Time and let their Freudian slips show. They see this as the first test of the Government—and it will be a test. But they look upon the test as showing whether the Government can really govern, whether they have the courage to put in the troops. They have no regard for what may happen to industrial relations or the national economy in the long term.
I believe that the strike is the Government's first major test, but from a different point of view. It is a test of the Government's attitude to the trade union movement and of their attitude to industrial relations. It is a test as to whether they want to build the sort of constructive industrial relationships about which the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has spoken in this House and has often written. It is a test as to whether, in Winston Churchill's memorable words, it is to be jaw-jaw rather than war-war.
In letting the Government have these emergency powers, we are not giving them unconditional carte blanche. I would say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) who spoke about voting against the use of troops: the vote this evening involves powers which are essential to the interests of our own constituents, the people whom we represent.

This applies to the powers of price control which some of us would wish to see exercised and the powers against exploitation. These are powers which spring inevitably from the situation which we face—an emergency situation which the Government have helped to create by the inadequacies of their own policy.
In giving the Government these emergency powers, we are giving them very unconditionally, on the understanding that they are not to be weapons for a showdown, but are to help to create a breathing space for a settlement. We shall judge the Government, as I am sure the country will judge them, by the spirit in which they use the great powers which the House is giving them today. This is the Government's major test. I hope for the sake of all of us that they do not fail.

Mr. John Mendelson: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the rather peculiar constitutional position in which the House finds itself? Although the main Motion before the House and the main speech from the Opposition Front Bench has dealt with the substance of this present situation which has led to this demand for powers by the Government, we find that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has no intention of taking part in this debate. This is the first time in my experience of five Parliaments that this has happened. Can anything be done to induce the right hon. Gentleman to intervene at some stage in the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not by the Chair, I am afraid. It is no part of the duties of the Chair to say who should open or reply to a debate. So far, our proceedings have been perfectly orderly. I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Gentleman.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: In a sense, there is a good deal of unreality about the situation in which we are debating. This is the first time that I have ever found myself the only hon. Member rising to speak in a debate on labour relations. Then, too, the speech by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was somewhat unreal. It was a mixture of the petulant and the party political, but


it did not contribute very much to the situation. Certainly it was no answer to my right hon. Friend's speech.
I am surprised that right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not recognise that the Government are in a difficult position. Ministers cannot easily set out a case which might conflict with what the court of inquiry is seeking to do in the middle of its deliberations. I think that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will find that there are precedents for that. On the other hand, I feel in no way inhibited, and I do not intend to restrict my remarks to the proposed Regulations. In a debate on a situation of the present kind, it would not serve the interests either of the House or of my party.
The situation that we face is a very serious one. If it were not serious, the Government would not be proposing emergency Regulations. Her Majesty's Proclamation refers to the possibility of the present emergency depriving the community of the essentials of life. Because of that threat, the Government are seeking these very wide powers.
The Proclamation also makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the Government to safeguard the nation. It is not the responsibility of the court of inquiry. When the court of inquiry has reported, the matter will still have to be determined by the Government. The Government have to decide what they intend to do arising out of the recommendations of the court of inquiry or arising out of the reactions of the dockers or the employers to its report. This is a matter for the Government. My right hon. Friend made that clear when he said that, although he hoped that it would not be necessary to use the Regulations, the Government would do anything necessary to maintain the life of the nation.
I want to refer briefly to three matters affected by the situation: first, the dockers themselves; secondly, the country as a whole: and, thirdly, the Government.
Dealing first with the dockers, I suppose that I would have been 10 years of age at the time of the 1926 General Strike. I cannot say that I remember it. However, I can remember the aftermath, since it rumbled on for many years. In 1926 the dockers and everyone else came out, and for a long time afterwards we were in the midst of a great economic

depression. At one time my father was out of work for 2½ years. There were 3 million unemployed, and in the town in which I lived not 5 per cent. but 84 per cent. of the population were out of work. The situation was a disaster, and we did not get out of it until just before the war. It affected all who were involved in it.
In those days and until a few years ago, the dockers were amongst the lowest paid in the community. Through their union and their own activities they have sought to improve their conditions. There is nothing wrong in that. But they have now reached the point at which they are among the highest-paid in the working community. If any hon. Member doubts that, I suggest that he comes to my constituency and talks to lower-paid workers or even to those who come within the middle range—to those who earn from £18 to £25 a week.
It was on the lower levels of pay that the dockers' rates used to be based, but that is not so today. Unfortunately, the dockers still look over their shoulders at the past. Many men at present in the docks remember the bad days. Of those who do not, many are the sons of dockers and can remember when their fathers were involved. In those days, dockers were subjected to a system similar to that which used to exist in our shipyards. When I worked in a shipyard just before the war, men were selected by a foreman, who went out to the gate and picked them—

Mr. Heffer: It was done after the war.

Mr. Lewis: Not in the shipyards.

Mr. Heffer: Ship repairers did it.

Mr. Lewis: It may have continued in ship repairing for a limited time, but it disappeared in the shipbuilding yards with the Essential Work Order, made by Ernest Bevin when he was Minister of Labour. I know, because I had to put that Order into operation before I went into the R.A.F. in 1941. It was the Essential Work Order which got rid of the system whereby men were selected if they happened to be the favourites of foremen. However, the practice remained in our docks for some time afterwards, and there is no doubt that dockers remember it. As a result, whenever they are involved in a dispute they tend to


think in terms of both their present and their past situations, with the underlying fear that there might be a return to the past situation if they do not take a certain line of action.
If one adds to that the atmosphere in the docks, where there are active Communists—

Mr. Heffer: No.

Mr. Lewis: Yes. There are Communist agitators and Maoists who are prepared to play on the situation. They represent an ingredient which rejoices in making worse a very difficult problem—

Mr. Heffer: And Roman Catholics as well?

Mr. Lewis: The dockers cannot live in the past. Today they are amongst the highest-paid of any work people in the country. If they insist on living in the past, they must remember that a disastrous dock strike cannot be confined to the docks. It will reverberate throughout the country, and we may arrive at a state of affairs where the strike affects the national economy and our factories are at a standstill. Industry will then find it difficult to get moving again, our exports will be affected, and there will be no production coming out of our factories to go through the docks. At the end of this line, the dockers will lose their jobs at worst or their bonuses at least. If they lose only their bonuses, they will find themselves in a substandard situation in terms of take-home pay, and back in the past. It is, therefore, in the interests of the dockers themselves that they should be reasonable and should seek, after the court of inquiry has finished, to settle this strike. I agree with the right hon. Lady that the quicker the inquiry meets and completes its work the better it will be for everyone.
The next matter for concern is the situation of the country as a whole. Most of the dockers are patriotic. They know that they are in a key industry. They are as much in a key industry as those in transport and in power. Therefore, they have an obligation not only to themselves and their future but also to the country as a whole.
We cannot export goods unless we do so, in the main, through the docks. We cannot transfer to aircraft—there are not enough—and the goods involved are too big to be suitably taken by air; they must go out through the docks. The country as a whole, which has a certain sympathy for at least the past situation that has afflicted the dockers, though very little sympathy for their present demands on their present rates, expects them to have regard not only to themselves but also to work people in other places in industry who are dependent upon them as much as they are dependent upon industry.

Mr. Peter Rost: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that the strike is likely to cause more serious hardship in places abroad than possibly in this country? I have information which my hon. Friend might like to know. There is an urgent export order of heavy sugar machinery by a firm in Derby which is awaiting shipment to West Pakistan. Any possible delay of the order is likely to ruin—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions, to be effective, should be short, and generally are not made before maiden speeches.

Mr. Lewis: I accept what my hon. Friend has said. A dock strike in this country must affect not only goods in this country but also goods that cannot get out of the country and are needed abroad. There is no doubt that the country can be affected seriously in future if the dock strike is prolonged. Industry at the moment is geared to a very good export order list, which will go if there is a prolonged dock strike.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the gravity of the situation and what it means if it goes on a moment longer. But is not the oddity of the situation that the court of inquiry is tending to keep the two sides apart, whereas the trade unions are urgently in need of discussion with the employers?

Mr. Lewis: I understood that the court of inquiry was to seek the views of both sides, as courts of inquiry do, and then try to suggest to both sides that they should meet and discuss what it


proposes. I think that this is a reasonable way to deal with the situation. I hope that when the court of inquiry's findings are known both the employers and the unions will get together to discuss them.
Whatever dispute there may be about the court of inquiry—there is little dispute that the Minister was right to set it up—the fact remains that industry at the moment has good order lists for export. If there is a prolonged dock strike it will not simply affect those exports that are prevented from going through the docks; it will also affect export orders behind those goods which will or may be cancelled. No one overseas owes us a living. People abroad are just as likely to order elsewhere as here if they are thoroughly inconvenienced. This can, therefore, strike a damaging blow at our economy—at the country, in other words.
Who is the country? This is a question which should be put to those who seek to prolong the strike. The ordinary men and women employed in industry are the country. A catastrophic situation arising from a prolonged strike will not affect the rich, because they are rich enough not to be bothered; it will affect the man employed in the factory and the housewife who needs his wages or who is herself employed in a factory. Those people will be affected in their millions by a prolonged dock strike. Therefore, those on either side who seek to prolong the strike because they believe that there is some fun to be got out of it ought to be made to realise that they are damaging the country and that, in damaging the country, they are damaging ordinary men and women.
Thirdly, I should like to refer to the Government's situation in relation to the strike. I am sure that my right hon. Friend is right in the friendly, co-operative, patient approach that he has shown in this situation. I am sure that it is right to handle labour relations on the basis of endeavouring, at any rate, as a Minister, not to show partiality to one side or the other and to be friendly. But one has to be firm as well as friendly. Sometimes one can escape being firm while being friendly for a limited period. But the time may come when my right hon. Friend may have to be firm. If

this strike is not settled, the Government will have to decide what is to be done—not the Opposition, not either side in the dispute, not the inquiry. If the two sides agree to accept what the court of inquiry proposes, well and good. If not, it is back to my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend will get full support because we know that he has shown a friendly co-operative approach to this matter; he will get full support for being firm when the time comes.
In my view, it has been an advantage that we have not put the troops in too soon. I hope that it may not be necessary to do so, but if we have to send troops in because we must at the end of the day, we shall then have to consider seriously whether we put them in just for the benefit for the fruit and vegetable merchants or for the benefit of industry as a whole. In other words, the time may come when we have to decide whether we can afford to allow exports to rot as well as the fruit.
I believe that this strike can be solved during the next week or so if there is good will on both sides, but it must not be settled on the basis of one side conceding completely and the other standing firm. If we arrive at that situation, then the Government must do their duty, and we shall support them in doing it.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. John D. Grant: It is customary for a maiden speaker to start by making some reference to his consituency and to his predecessor, but in view of the gravity of the situation which the House is debating this afternoon I intend to waive that custom, save only to say that I am proud to have been elected to represent the people of East Islington, and proud, too, to follow in the footsteps of so distinguished a Parliamentarian as Sir Eric, now Lord, Fletcher. I feel sure that the people of my constituency will understand my reasons for cutting to the minimum this tradition of the House and will appreciate that I am making this speech in somewhat unusual circumstances. In the years ahead I hope to have plenty of opportunity to deal in the House with their special problems.
I was particularly keen to take part in today's debate because for the last 10 years I have been quite closely involved


in industrial relations and I know many of the principal characters concerned in this dispute. I am not claiming to be any kind of an expert. My personal view is that there is no such animal in the complex and constantly changing world of industrial relations. I think that Ministers and ex-Ministers on both sides of the House who have tangled in this field will know what I mean. They have frequently finished up bothered, bewildered and on occasions slightly bruised. It is perhaps rather surprising in view of that that the Ministerial mortality rate at St. James's Square is not rather higher, and in mentioning that perhaps I can bring some small comfort to the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr), who has not very much with which to comfort himself at the moment. I wish the right hon. Gentleman well in his efforts to find a solution to this dispute, but I shall not be able to refrain from some criticisim of his handling of certain aspects of it.
I shall not weary the House further with the protracted history of the dispute, except to recall that for about two or three years the employers have quite consistently ducked the issue of the basic rate in the hope that the problem would somhow go away; presumably expecting it to be overtaken by port modernisation talks or, alternatively, by their loss of responsibility through port nationalisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) was quite right when he referred to this the other day, but he was scoffed at by hon. Gentlemen opposite, many of whom, I rather suspect, when they hear the word "port" immediately think of something bottled. If that is thought far-fetched, perhaps I might tell the House that one hon. Gentleman opposite to whom I was speaking the other day thought that the fall-back rate was some kind of industrial injury benefit.
I am not suggesting that the dockers' claim, if it was conceded, would not add substantially to the costs of the port transport industry, but to hear the employers and some hon. Gentlemen opposite talking one would think that the claim was a settlement. Claims are invariably lodged as the basis for negotiation. They usually result in a compromise, and that is what negotiation is

all about. It means striking a bargain, and I hope that we can perhaps hear less about the size of this claim.
Nevertheless, it seems clear to me that at some stage the employers will have to recast their package offer to allow for some variation of the basic rate. It may be possible to do so without the increase necessarily being passed on fully all the way up the scale. I thought that the union had indicated that it was at least prepared to talk on these lines, but what about the employers' attitude?
I am not going to suggest to the House that all port employers are—HANSARD can find a word for that—but the port employers in this dispute have shown a remarkable intransigence, both over their attitude to the basic rate and, even more important, over their utterly outdated and ridiculous refusal to negotiate with the union while the strike goes on. I thought that pointless and provocative posturing of that kind went out a long time ago, but obviously it has not.
Here I feel justified in making serious reservations about the Minister's handling of the situation and emphasising some of the remarks of my right hon. Friend. If I may use the currently overworked phrase, I think that the Minister should have leaned on the employers, and I shall try to show why. The best hope is that Lord Pearson's court of inquiry will produce a formula which will include some form of increase in the basic rate. I think that in that way the employers will feel obliged to accept and be able to blame the court for any loss of face which they feel that they have suffered. This is the only sensible way to a speedy solution. But if the Minister had put pressure on the employers last week I think we would have stood a fair chance of getting just that kind of settlement without the lenghy and costly strike action which we are now enduring. If, on the other hand, the court of inquiry feel unable to offer that kind of solution, then I fear that we may be back to square one, and the struggle could be long and bitter, indeed,
I accept the primary need for conciliation from the Department of Employment and Productivity, and I have the utmost respect for its efforts over many years in that field, but it seems to me


that when the chips are down we need rather more from the political head of a Government Department than the chairmanship, however skilful, of meetings, and his addition to the necessarily cautious guidance which the concilation officers of that Department give to the parties. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may not like the term "interventionism" but in industrial disputes there comes a time when straight talking is required and when heads need banging together, and on this occasion it was the employers' heads which needed some attention. I shall be delighted if the Pearson inquiry speedily resolves the dispute, but I feel that we are greatly at risk.
I should like to refer to a letter I received today from a fairly prominent port employer. It was an unsolicited letter, and I am given to believe that it was written on behalf of a number of employers. The writer does not support the claim, but there are one or two paragraphs that I should like to quote from his letter. He says:
The faults and causes of the current strike are not all one-sided. Negotiations for further modernisation have dragged on largely as a result of dilatoriness on the part of employers and ship owners not only in the Port of London but also in other ports in the country. Management at dock level has been largely demoralised for years because of interference by ship owners and agents based outside the docks …
The system is at fault and I venture to suggest that there is still too little consultation between management and men. A far higher degree of education and training of management is required and dock managers must be allowed to show leadership and to manage on their own initiative. Moreover, whilst the casual system enabled money to be the only reward there must now be greater consultation, participation and more opportunity of advancement.
It concludes—and this is particularly relevant in view of some remarks made by hon. Gentlemen opposite—
I was personally disturbed to hear the Chairman of the National Association of Port Employers state that he refused to talk with the unions until work was resumed. This attitude used to be standard practice, but unless both sides talk and genuinely attempt to seek peace there can be only an imposed settlement and such a solution must be second best to a solution agreed between the parties themselves.
If we had more port employers taking that view we would not be in the mess that we are in now.
We have heard a lot about the Conservative Party cure-all for wildcat strikes. But this is an official strike, and I submit that the proposals contained in that much-vaunted document "Fair Deal at Work" would do nothing to bring it to an end, and would have done nothing to avert it or to avert any of the other major stoppages that have occurred in recent years. We can therefore dismiss that myth. I hope that when the Prime Minister visits the United States of America he will take time off to look at their industrial relations system. He will find that legal sanctions do not work.
I have mentioned one kind of wildcat. There are other kinds of wildcat. If we have a state of emergency that may require the use of troops in the docks, the Government should also deal with those wildcat commercial interests which have been quick to cash in on the strike at the expense of the British housewife. I do not see why the Government should not implement their powers to control prices immediately. Why should they not do so? Who would object—apart from the would-be racketeers? Nobody has anything to worry about unless he is seeking to cheat the public.
There are those of us who feel that the port employers and some hon. Members opposite are not altogether unhappy at this showdown with the union. They feel that if it goes on for very long there will be little public sympathy for the dockers, and increased support for the Conservative proposals to reform industrial relations—proposals that the trade unions so much resent. If prices rocket and the economy is hard hit there will be a tailor-made scapegoat for the evasion of election promises on prices, taxes and a range of other issues.
I hope that these suspicions are unfounded, but hon. Members opposite should be aware that the quickest and surest way to dispel such ideas would be to get the parties to the dispute back around the negotiating table promptly. They must come together in the end, no matter what the court of inquiry finds. Now that orthodox conciliation has failed, we should—in line with the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—have a more positive approach from the Government, not simply


to seek peace at any price but to move on the lines that I have already indicated, to try to help the parties to reach a sensible compromise rather than risk a fight to the finish, which would only damage the whole nation grievously.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. John Page: I congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) on having got his maiden speech over. We hope that we shall be hearing from him a lot in future. I say that with sincerity, because today he spoke, as he said, from a long experience of industrial relations and a close knowledge of many of those involved in the dispute that we are now discussing. My view is that the contributions that people make in debates in the House are in exact measure to their personal and current experience of the matter under discussion. I therefore hope that the hon. Member will not fall into the trap that some of his hon. Friends have done and divorce himself from his previous existence—his previous way of earning his living—so that he can keep fresh and topped up with his knowledge of affairs outside the House; otherwise he will find that he tends to become only the mouthpiece of journalists. It is better for journalists to speak for themselves.
This debate was intended to discuss the emergency powers, as introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, but it seems to be turning into a long debate on the rights and wrong of the dispute. It has always been traditional for Members on both sides of the House to try to avoid stirring up new difficulties at a time when disputes are going on. That has been the consistent attitude taken by hon. Members. I have probably attended more debates on industrial affairs in the House than even the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I remember when the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Gunter), were at the Dispatch Box discussing industrial disputes and hon. Members of the then Opposition were urged not to intervene—were urged to allow the two sides to get together to try to come to a conciliatory agreement. The only thing that I agree with in what the right hon.

Lady said is that ultimately the dispute will be settled round the table.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity on the part that he has played in trying to solve the dispute. Both sides in the dispute, and the commentators who have been personally involved with the way the dispute has been handled, have appreciated my right hon. Friend's thoughtful, careful and considerate attitude as the independent chairman of the negotiations. That attitude seemed absolutely correct. My right hon. Friend brought the two sides to his Department. He tried to discuss separately with them their problems, and, as he said in an earlier statement, before the rather tragic one of 16th July—I think that the previous statement was on 10th July—the difficulty was to get each side to say exactly what its problems were. Ultimately, after the negotiations took place, we came to the position when a recommendation had been arrived at that Mr. Jones felt he could put to his Committee.
The right hon. Lady gave the impression that throughout the dispute the trouble has been caused by the recalcitrant attitude of the employers. The employers' side has been dragging its feet over the years in making a more vivid contribution towards modernisation schemes in the docks. I have been down to the docks on a number of occasions. There is a fragmentation on the employers side. There are so many different kinds of employer. Then there is the Port of London Authority and the background of the Dock Labour Board. It has always seemed to me that the employers failed to get together to present a considered attitude with which all could agree. It did not seem much good for different unions to negotiate with different employers and then find that the P.L.A. did not agree with the steps which had been taken by other employers.
Mr. Jones felt that he had gone a long way, and I presume that he thought that he had got an agreement which would be acceptable to the trade union side. I think that he behaved with real personal courage because he tried to ask the trade unionists and the dockers to continue working while the outline agreement was being discussed. That was perhaps a tactical mistake, because my reading of


the newspapers suggests that it upset a large number of the delegates attending the meeting the following day, who did not feel that it was within his terms of reference to try to stop the strike. It was a courageous effort on his part. Perhaps, had he not taken that step, the agreement would have been found acceptable on a vote of 43 to 49 instead of rejected by that margin.
I am not trying to stir things up, but it should be put on record that it is not the employers who have refused to negotiate. My right hon. Friend said on 16th July:
… it became clear that the unions were not prepared to resume talks on the basis of an increase in the modernisation payment which had been under discussion last weekend."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1970; Vol 803, c. 1727.]
That was a statement that the unions refused to negotiate and come to the table on this claim—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] This is what my right hon. Friend said in the House—[An HON. MEMBER: "Quote it."] I have already quoted it and that is what he said—[An HON. MEMBER: "It was wrong."] What my right hon. Friend said, with his intimate knowledge, I believe was right and clear.
It is disappointing that the unions refused to discuss a new agreement with the employers unless certain matters were included, and that the employers are refusing to talk to the unions unless certain matters are excluded. That is the position today. Therefore, my right hon. Friend had no alternative but to set up the court of inquiry.
I hope, though, that the Under-Secretary of State will tell us when the Pearson Committee will be reporting. Can we expect at least an outline of its report before the House rises? A statement next Thursday, if possible, would be very helpful. Otherwise, unless there is some real coming together of the parties, and a statement before the House rises, it would be unwise for the House to go into recess. I say this despite the fact that my holiday arrangements, which necessitate the removal of my car overseas, would be jeopardised, but that is the situation which faces many hon. Members.
It is the duty of the House to complain about the disgraceful speech by the right hon. Member for Blackburn. It was an

unguarded and inflammatory speech, especially when, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench in the middle of a dispute, she threw out the question of whether there would be an indiscriminate and thoughtless use of troops. How utterly absurd can you get? The right hon. Lady knows, as well as every other hon. Member, that if and when troops have to be used in the docks, they will not be used indiscriminately or thoughtlessly.
The decision will be a very hard one for my right hon. Friends, and they will take it only after the deepest deliberation and careful consideration of the consequences, which are clear to them, since they were outlined early on by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) last Thursday. He said:
Will he also appreciate that there are many on this side of the House, and many trade unionists, who will call for an extension of the strike …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1736.]
That was a very unwise thing to say so early on. If it had been said by an hon. Member on this side, the hon. Member for Tottenham and his hon. Friends would have shouted about incitement. His was an incitement. His was the first occasion when an extension of the strike was mentioned in the House—quite unnecessarily.
We shall listen with interest to see how much encouragement the hon. Member and his hon. Friends give to the production of a conciliatory and satisfactory settlement, or whether they want to stir it up themselves. They tasted blood last June in dealings with the right hon. Lady and the then Prime Minister, and I think they want to see whether they will enjoy the taste again. For the sake of the country I hope that they will be moderate and will not continue the attitude of incitement which was evident the other day.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Peter Doig: First of all, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, West (Mr. John D. Grant) on one of the finest maiden speeches that I have heard in the House.
The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) said that when he was in opposition he was told by the then Government not to intervene but to allow discussions to proceed. The reason


why we are intervening now is the same: we want discussions to continue. Therefore, we are being consistent. We like discussions to proceed in all industrial disputes.
The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) appeared to think that the whole cause of the dispute should be laid at the door of the dockers. He never once mentioned the employers. Nevertheless, he used an alarming phrase when he said that the dockers would lose their bonuses and soon find themselves living in substandard conditions.
This is the kernel of the cause of the dispute—the fact that the dockers have a basic wage of only £11 1s. 8d. It is obvious that, without the extras, they will soon be in substandard conditions. Should we judge people's payments and conditions on their overtime and bonuses or on their standard rates of pay? I suggest that the dockers need a basic rate of pay which is reasonable. In this case it is unreasonable. Their present basic of £11 1s. 8d. was fixed 4½ years ago and they have not had an increase since.
This is not a rash action by an irresponsible group of workers. This is an official strike authorised by their union. Their claim for a review of their basic rate was submitted more than 18 months ago, and only when the threat of a strike was made did the employers make an offer. Is it to be wondered that these men went on strike?
This industry has been reasonable. Since decasualisation, productivity has increased by 40 per cent., although earnings during this period have gone up by only 25 per cent. A basic rate of £11 1s. 8d. is ample justification to strike.
The employers estimate that the cost of the increase to them would be 50 per cent. The unions estimate the cost at between 7 per cent. and 10 per cent. With a difference of this magnitude, there must be good ground for the two sides to have discussions. Unfortunately, the employers are willing to discuss everything but the basic rate, the one genuine grievance. How many workers, apart from M.P.s, have gone 4½ years without having their wages reviewed, let alone increased? When the estimates of cost vary so greatly—between 7 per cent. and

50 per cent.—there must be ground for discussion. The stumbling block is not the union or the workers but the employers, who virtually refuse to discuss the prime cause of this dispute, which is the basic rate.
The Government maintain that because they have established a court of inquiry they need not do anything further. Indeed, they have said that they should not take sides in the dispute. I suggest, however, that a dispute of this magnitude, which requires the taking of emergency powers, requires the Government to be prepared to find ways to solve the problem.
If, in solving it, they discover that one side will not discuss the root grievance of the dispute, then the Government should be prepared to take sides, in the national interest, because if they find one side to be wrong it is their duty to ensure that the basic grievance is discussed, particularly when it is a genuine one. I defy anybody to say that the dockers do not have a genuine grievance in complaining about their basic rate of £11 1s. 8d. not being increased in 4½ years.
If the Government are not prepared to take sides, they are shelving their responsibilities. The court of inquiry cannot end the matter. After all, what will happen to its report? Will the Government see that something is done if the report reveals the need for action?
The basic trouble in this case seems to stand out a mile. Although the Government are anxious to show how tough they will be with the unions, I hope they will not pick on this issue to illustrate their toughness, particularly when at the root of the problem is a basic weekly rate of only £11 1s. 8d.

6.37 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I am surprised to be intervening in this debate, and I apologise for not having been in my place for the whole of the speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).
I have also been surprised at the small amount of detail and attention that has been paid by hon. Members to the regulations with which the debate is concerned. Although hon. Gentlemen


opposite have put pressure on the Government to lean on the employers, it seems that they are not prepared to take into account such matters as arbitration, which the dockers originally rejected but which the employers were at one stage urging as a means of solving the dispute.
I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept that there is not all right on one side or the other. There is probably a deal of right on both, something which always happens in industrial disputes like this. It is wrong to suggest that it is the responsibility of the Government to come down strongly in favour on only one side, and my view is that the general public agree with me. Some hon. Members have responsibilities to trade unions. I appreciate that it is right and proper for them to voice their views. However, let it not go out from this House that there is only one side to this question.
I have been worried by the economic effect this strike is likely to have. It will mean the loss of between £140 million and £150 million worth of exports weekly. It is possible that we can catch up on some of them when the strike is over, but some will be lost for ever.
One of the difficulties which I have not heard mentioned concerns industrialists and exporters. Because of the dock strike, promised delivery dates may be broken. This is part of what has become known as the English disease—the inability to fulfil contracts on the given dates. I speak as a small exporter. It is important for exporters to be able to deliver on the agreed date. When one is unable to supply on a date which has been negotiated, the chances of new business are decreased. I do not say that there is no chance of new business, but it is more difficult to get it. The long-term economic effects of a prolonged strike, and, therefore, the financial effects, need greater emphasis.
As does my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), I hope that we shall have some sort of interim statement from Lord Pearson's court of inquiry before the House rises for the Summer Recess at the end of the week. I hope that we shall be told tonight that the Government intend to get some interim statement before the

House rises. The problems are immense, and no one wishes to exacerbate the situation, I least of all, but if the House rose before we knew the way in which Lord Pearson and his committee were thinking, and before we knew the reaction of the employers and employees to the committee's interim findings, we might find that it was necessary for the House to reassemble much sooner than any of us would want. I should prefer the House to sit longer rather than to have to return much earlier.
Nobody in the House wants perishable produce in any ship in any port to rot and go to waste. It would be foolish and criminal. I urge the Government to request the dockers to unload and allow the distribution of perishable items which are about to rot and go to waste. This is a reasonable request. To meet it might obviate more precipitate action by the Government to ensure that such foodstuffs were not allowed to rot.
Third-party insurance is dealt with in paragraph 10 on page 9 of the Regulations. The Regulations seem to be the same as those introduced by the Labour Government in 1966, but I should like to know the exact position of someone involved in an accident when third-party insurance provisions arise. If there was an accident on the roads and normal third-party insurance provisions were not applicable, the ordinary citizen who was involved and his insurers might have to bear the cost. He would also lose his no-claim bonus. It would seem wrong for him to be in that position. Is there any likelihood of that? If not, how is the situation covered?
I do not have to declare an interest in this subject, although it is something that affects me. The present regulations governing the transportation of petroleum spirit do not allow its delivery in the evening without a signature for the delivery. Will the Emergency Regulations permit more flexibility? The present Regulations governing the delivery of petroleum spirit are largely out of date. They require that someone should be in attendance to take delivery because of possible spillage. With modern equipment for delivery, that provision is now out of date, and I hope that the emergency regulations will allow greater flexibility.
Paragraph 9 on page 12 deals with food prices. Considerable powers are given to the Minister of Agriculture to control food prices, if necessary. I hope that these powers will never have to be used. I join with my right hon. Friend in urging housewives to do comparative shopping if prices appear to be much greater than they now are. Shopping around is the best way to ensure that market forces work and the best way to ensure that those trying to make an extra profit because of shortages are not allowed to do so.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: What the hon. Member is saying would be absolutely right if the undue profit were being made at the retail level, because housewives could find a retailer who was playing the game straight and go to him. But if it is done at the wholesale level, so that the retailer is as much a victim as is the shopper, what can the poor housewife do about that?

Mr. Emery: The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) knows enough about economics to know that it is up to the retailer to choose where to do his own buying. That would apply only if a retailer had only one wholesale supplier, but that is not generally the case nowadays. If the retailer found that he was being taken for a ride by his wholesaler, to use a colloquialism, it would be his duty to ensure that he found another source of supply. It comes back to the housewife, who must make certain that, if by some misfortune the retailer has to buy from a particular source, the customers go elsewhere. I accept that that would be hard on the shopkeeper. This is why I urge the need to shop around. This is why I hope that housewives will turn from purchasing beef and lamb to buying produce which we have in this country, such as poultry. They would then find that there is not the increase in prices which might be applicable for some types of beef and lamb.
Where prices have risen during the strike it is essential that the Minister shall put as much effort into getting prices down again at the end of the strike as he put into trying to stop them rising. Anyone who has been in business knows that once prices have gone up, it is three times more difficult to get them down again.

Mr. Orme: Free competition.

Mr. Emery: I urge the Minister to make a strenuous effort to ensure that the moment the dispute is solved the supply of those goods whose price appears to have been unjustifiably increased shall be increased in delivery so that there can be a scaling down of prices.
I should like an assurance from the Minister over what should happen if it became necessary for persons other than dockers to operate expensive equipment on the docks. None of us likes to think of the possibility of troops having to move goods. I do not refer to this in order to be provocative, but the Minister has to ensure that there are available a number of skilled operators who are able to work the mechanical handling equipment now involved in unloading ships.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: There are plenty of them. Is the hon. Member aware that they will all be getting much more than £11 basic wages because they are well paid by the State as Servicemen?

Mr. Emery: The hon. Member has been in this House long enough to know that their take home or guaranteed pay would not be as much as the dockers get. I am trying not to get into this argument and I have avoided it so far.
It is important that in this period the Government should take necessary steps to safeguard very complicated mechanical handling equipment. It could easily be damaged by people who are not used to operating it.
It has always been my view that no section of the community, workers or employers, has the right to hold the rest of the country or the economy of the nation to ransom. I do not mind whether they are doctors or dockers, employers or electricity workers. The Government have a duty to ensure that no person is allowed to undermine the stability of the nation or the standard of living of the people. That is why these emergency Regulations are necessary. They are necessary so that the Government can carry out the duty which every hon. Member ought to support, I hope not necessarily in the Division Lobby, of ensuring that these powers shall be available to the Government to safeguard the economy and the standard of living of the majority of the population.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: This afternoon we heard from the Home Secretary an interesting and brief speech which to some extent had a remarkable philosophy. He said he thought we should support the Emergency Regulations because the Government had established a court of inquiry. He went on to urge that we ought not to discuss the issues involved. But we have these Emergency Regulations before us because there is a history behind this whole matter. The Regulations were not plucked out of the air. They are here because there is a dock strike which has a long history behind it.
For 18 months the dockers' trade unions have been urging the port employers to raise the basic time rate for the majority of dockers in Britain. On six occasions the employers have said, "No, we are not prepared to discuss the basic time rate." A very complicated situation has arisen because the rate of £11 1s. 8d. does not apply to the whole of the dockers. Those in Liverpool have a £16 a week basic time rate. Had the employers been sufficiently intelligent to have offered dockers throughout the country £16 a week basic time rate, in my opinion we would not have had a dock strike at this moment. The employers argued that if the rate was raised to 8s. an hour—although the claim is £20 a week and the hourly rate would be higher—the whole of the piece rates and bonus rates would have been affected. In Liverpool dockers have 8s. an hour but the basic piece rates are on a basis of 5s. 6½d. an hour. They have been quite happy with that basis.
We on this side of the House say that the main responsibility for this dispute is on the shoulders of the employers, and we have good reason for saying so. We said that, not because we do not understand the problems, but precisely because we do understand them. The dispute could end in 12 hours if the employers would offer a basic increase in the time rate and then discuss piece rates at local level, as they could do under the agreements and under the modernisation programme.
However, the Government will not lean on the employers: they seek to wash their hands of it. They rush in with emergency

powers. I challenge that we are in an emergency. I admit that we are in one sense.
The Home Secretary's statement that nothing was coming into or going out of the country was untrue. The Liverpool dockers have been loading ships for the Isle of Man. They have decided that their earnings will be donated to charities of their choice. This has been happening in other ports, in an effort to ensure that people living on islands surrounding this country will receive the foodstuffs they require. Is there a real emergency?
If the Government wanted to solve the problem of moving perishable goods, they could have discussions with officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union. They did not have to rush in with emergency powers of this character.
I shall not support these powers. I shall vote against them, because they are totally unnecessary in the present situation. I agree with Mr. Jack Jones's view that they are premature. If one believes in conciliation, the machinery of conciliation could be put into operation, and these powers are not needed for that.
There are emergency powers to enable the Government to introduce price controls. I have not seen much action in that respect so far. I understand that the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had a walk-round in one of the markets this morning. That is all that has been done so far, and it is about all that will be done. I shall be interested to see whether powers are used to control prices. Regulation No. 29, which is headed "Trespassing and loitering". reads:
No person shall trespass on, or on premises in the vicinity of, any premises used or appropriated for the purposes of essential services".
How do shop stewards or others who are picketing carry out their lawful picket except in the vicinity of the place where they have been working?
In Liverpool there are no pickets, because the strike is 100 per cent. The occasion may arise, however, when scabs are brought in by some unscrupulous employer and the trade unionists decide to put a few pickets on. Under these Regulations those lads doing the picketing could be arrested.
I know that hon. Members opposite will say that similar Regulations were


introduced in 1966. They were, and I opposed them then. I said forcibly at the time that I did not agree with them. I have always been ashamed that I did not then vote against them. I shall salve that conscience tonight by voting against these Regulations. I hope that others will join me.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend will not make the same mistake twice.

Mr. Heffer: I do not repeat my mistakes. I profit from my mistakes.
Regulation No. 31 says:
No person shall—(a) do any act calculated to induce any member of Her Majesty's forces or constable to withhold his services or commit breaches of discipline.
If a group of dockers were to say to their sons home on leave from the Army at the weekend, "We are on strike. We hope that you are not going into the docks and do our work for us", under this Regulation that could be an act calculated to persuade the soldiers to withhold their services.
These Regulations are full of such things. I do not trust hon. Members opposite. I never have, because they have a long history of such actions against the trade union movement and the workers. Leopards do not easily change their spots. Hon. Members opposite are going through a schizophrenic stage. They first make brave statements to the effect that they will bludgeon the workers. When the reality of their threat hits them in the face, they walk the other way. Then they said again that they would bludgeon the workers. All the dockers came out on strike. So hon. Members opposite said, "Perhaps we had better not bludgeon them". Then they bring in these emergency powers. Then they back away again. They are doing it all the time. They would be sensible to back away altogether. Ministers should get round the table and discuss these matters. That would be far more sensible than introducing such emergency powers.
It is every Government's responsibility to concern themselves with the welfare of the people. God forbid that the strike should continue for a fortnight, but if it does and if the Government were then forced to introduce forms of emergency powers the situation might be different.

But emergency powers do not have to be ones such as these. Harsh Regulations of this kind have been introduced only three times—in 1926, in 1966 and today. Less harsh Regulations than this could be introduced. If that were done in a matter of two weeks, we may be able to view it somewhat differently. However, the Government rush in with these Regulations and, at the same time, set up a court of inquiry. I argue that the one contradicts the other.
I therefore hope that my hon. Friends will not accept the Regulations, and that they will oppose them in the Lobbies at half-past eleven. If we could delete the offending parts of the Regulations, I should be greatly in favour of doing that. However, I understand that we have to vote for or against the totality of the Regulations. On that basis, I hope we shall reject them. They are unnecessary. They are too early. If they lead to the introduction of troops into the docks, we shall have one of the most serious industrial crises the country has ever known.
Yesterday's Sunday Express discovered that the Maoists are active—

Mr. Mikado: All two of them!

Mr. Heffer: —or the Trotskyites are active. I am sure that all my very good Roman Catholic dockers will be roaring their heads off. I do not see any of them running round with little red books quoting chunks of Chairman Mao. They understand the situation full well.
If troops are brought in, it will be no good saying, "We have introduced further regulations to move the tug boats." Nobody is working on the tug boats. Nobody is operating the lock gates. There are no maintenance men working in the docks. It could blow up into a gigantic industrial conflict of a type that we do not want. I warn right hon. and hon. Members opposite that that is the logic of their action. Unless they have the fullest consultation with the Transport and General Workers' Union and reach agreement with it, the outcome will be tragic, and that is why I hope my hon. Friends will reject the Regulations.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. Robert Cooke: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) spoke with considerable passion and knowlege of the intricacies


of the dock world. He represents a constituency which is closely connected with the problem which we are considering. However, my view is that this is a debate about the emergency powers and not about the issues in this dispute, and I wish to confine myself to the question of the powers.
The hon. Member for Walton objected to the introduction of the powers and, at the same time, complained that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture had been wandering round Covent Garden Market doing nothing. Without the powers, my right hon. Friend would be able to do nothing effective if he were forced to act. Therefore, that part of the hon. Gentleman's argument was self-defeating.
I should help the hon. Gentleman about another matter which he raised. He suggested that people taking part in the strike, even if they did what he regarded as legitimate acts, could be arrested for loitering in the vicinity—he objected to those words in the Regulations—when, in his view, all they would be doing would be picketing. That is not the case. The second paragraph of Regulation 34 states:
Provided that a person shall not be guilty of an offence against any of these Regulations by reason only of his taking part in, or peacefully persuading any other person or persons to take part in, a strike.
That would seem to safeguard the position of the peaceful picket. I hope that, in view of what I have just read, the hon. Gentleman feels a little happier.

Mr. Heffer: Mr. Heffer indicated dissent.

Mr. Cooke: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but perhaps on reflection he will realise that the position of people doing legitimate acts is safeguarded by the Regulations. It is provided that if people do what the hon. Gentleman suggested they will not be guilty of an offence against any of the Regulations—and that means the whole lot.
The speech of the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) was attacked by some of my hon. Friends because, they said, it was inflammatory. I do not want to attack her speech. I did not have the pleasure of hearing it because I was attending a meeting of a Select Committee which over the years—and the hon. Member for Walton will

have sympathy with me here because the Committee is concerned with something about which he is keen—has been considering ways of improving the conditions of hon. Members and the efficiency of Parliament. But all that is extraordinarily irrelevant compared with the present grave emergency for which these powers are designed.
I do not wish to get involved in the issues of this dispute. The House of Commons is not a good place in which to debate them, certainly not at this stage, because, although we have had the benefit of hearing speeches from Members who claim to have a very close knowledge of the dock industry, we have not heard the other side of the case, and we cannot do so because it is not represented here. I therefore wish to discuss the Regulations and to ask a few questions about them.
The newspaper which yesterday published a forecast that the strike would be considerably extended no doubt exaggerated the information which it had received, but today hon. Members have made rumblings about possible extensions of it. Several hon. Members opposite have wondered what would happen if the strike went on for a long time. The hon. Member for Walton said that the introduction of the emergency powers would exacerabate the situation and painted a macabre picture of how the trouble would spread. If that happened, there would no doubt be grave injury, not just to the dock industry, but to the economy and perhaps not simply public distress but inconvenience, hardship and even injury.
I am glad that the Regulations attempt to safeguard vital supplies. The first three Regulations would seem to deal with the problem which might arise if vital cargoes could not be unloaded by any of the normal processes. A large number of other Regulations need examination. The hon. Member for Walton, who complained about them and who may not be successful in getting enough Members into his Lobby to defeat them, surely would not complain about their being examined if we are to have them.
I have reservations about relaxing the restrictions on the use of road vehicles. I can see that they may be necessary,


but I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that they are used very sparingly and will take into account the fact that grave dangers could arise from the indiscriminate use of vehicles which would not have to come up to the present high standards. I should not think that one hon. Member would disagree with the proposition that there are far too many vehicles on the roads which, even with the present Regulations, are thoroughly unsafe and a danger to the public.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cooke: I am glad to have the support of the hon. Gentleman, who knows a lot about this matter. The use of these powers should be viewed against the background that we realise the difficulties and that we do not want to make them worse.
Regulations 13 to 16, dealing with essential public services, are necessary because there could be a loss of life if the vital services with which they are concerned were not maintained. No one taking part in a strike would willingly put at risk the life of another citizen, but it is all too easy for someone to pull a switch at one end and not to know what will happen at the other. It might be assumed in the event of a stoppage in the electricity supply industry that all hospitals had their own auxiliary equipment. One must not presume this, and clearly the Government have a duty to protect the interests of all.
One might believe that perhaps the non-collection of refuse, which caused trouble not long ago, was merely an inconvenience and that we might have to put up with that sort of thing in the event of a dispute or stoppage. But, as we know, this can cause danger to health. The question of sewerage and sewage disposal is of vital concern. We cannot allow the rivers to become polluted because the sewage works are out of action.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) asked some pertinent questions about the movement of liquid fuel, petrols and oils. Any stoppage in the distribution of these vital substances could cause not just grave inconvenience but injury to people. I hope that the Government have their plans

laid should it be necessary to see that essential supplies get through.
If, for instance, public transport, which operates on one of these vital fuels, were unable to function, some communities would find themselves cut off from the rest of the world. With the contraction of public transport services in country districts, the private car can be vitally necessary. If there is no fuel for it, the whole community can find itself at a great disadvantage.
I hope very much that the price control which is envisaged for the fixing of maximum prices for food and animal feedingstuffs will not have to be used, because it tends to create other difficulties. Some of us are old enough to remember what it was like during the war when we had fixed prices. Those, however, were prices above the counter and other things happened beneath the counter. Surely, we would hope that we will not get to that state of affairs.
The hon. Member for Walton made much of the rigours of these powers and I imagine that he would have said something about the requisitioning of chattels and the taking of possession of land had he looked at the relevant Regulations. This is an extreme case which could, I suppose, arise. Chattels, of course, can include practically everything.
There is a provision for compensation, and if the compensation is not agreeable one can go to arbitration. This, however, is a fairly clumsy power and I hope that it will not be needed. It is a depressing thought that Regulation 28 contains provisions with regard to sabotage. That foreshadows an ugly situation and I hope that that will never occur.
The saving paragraph will be of great interest to hon. Members opposite. I hope that no one will fail to notice that under the penalties Regulation—Regulation 34—the peaceful picket will be absolutely safe. I do not claim to be an expert on this, but the Regulation says so and I would have thought that that would stand up in any court. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) disagrees. Perhaps he will seek an opportunity to elaborate his case, because he knows a lot about these things and the House will be grateful if he gives time to the subject.
I hope that these powers can be allowed to lapse when they would normally lapse and that they will not have to be renewed. They are very wide. In the wrong hands, there could be abuse. I do not mean abuse in the worst sense by the Government, because I am sure that they will be slow to invoke any of these powers. There could, however, be abuse in the sense that officialdom could be extraordinarily obstructive to the private citizen in the situation which could exist—and, heaven knows, officialdom makes the like of private citizens difficult enough already.
At the very worst, the Regulations envisage an utterly tragic situation approaching national economic suicide should the stoppage continue and spread. As a Member for a great maritime city—Bristol also has its docks—I felt that I must make these few observations. I hope that eventually we shall see a fair deal for all.
I want to leave the House with the thought that by the continuing of the stoppage, nobody is benefiting. By every hour that it goes on, we are losing something of that improved quality of life that we all fought about at the recent General Election and which everybody in the House, all his time in the House, is trying to achieve—better homes, schools, health and hospitals, the improvement of the environment and getting rid of pollution. All these things need money and we know that we cannot afford them all now.
The previous Government found that they could not afford to do all that they wanted to do. The level of the difficulty might be a matter of dispute, but no hon. Member on the benches opposite would disagree with the proposition that the previous Government raced ahead on all those good things in such a way that they overspent. That happens, of course, with other Governments, but the previous Government in particular found this. If they had had more money, they could have done more. Politicians delight in spending other people's money.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is widening the debate.

Mr. Cooke: I was about to come to my final paragraph, Mr. Speaker, and bring my remarks back to earth.
The money that we need for all the things we want to do comes from taxes, and taxes come from profits. If there are no profits, there will be no revenue from the taxes. Every hour that the stoppage continues reduces the amount of resources that we in this House have to deploy for the public good.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I understand that in the first part of this debate—until 10 o'clock—we are concerned in the main with the Motion which declares the state of emergency. I think it is right to say that this is the seventh time in the history of the country since the passing of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, that a state of emergency has been declared. This is, therefore, a serious moment in the history of the country.
We have heard sufficient reference this evening to the Regulations which it is intended to pass in the light of the emergency. That illustrates what a serious state of affairs this is. In the 1966 debate it was said that the Regulations then introduced were the most severe since the general strike of 1926. Although I have not had time to compare the Regulations, a cursory glance is sufficient to satisfy me that today's Regulations are very similar to those that were passed in 1966. These are, therefore, save for the general strike of 1926, the most severe Regulations that we have had for many years.
That illustrates that we are not embarking lightly on this course this evening. The Government have obviously considered their position. It is certainly right that any community must safeguard its livelihood and its life, and a Government which are responsible for safeguarding that life must take the proper steps. Nevertheless, I do not think that any hon. Member on the benches opposite, or on this side of the House, could with equanimity give the powers in, for example, Regulation 25 for the requisitioning of chattels or in Regulation 26 for the taking of possession of land. They are very severe. I cannot imagine anybody on the Conservative benches lightly agreeing with Regulations of that kind unless they thought that there was a very serious emergency.
A point has been raised concerning the position of pickets. Regulation 32, under the heading
Power to arrest without warrant".
provides that
Where a constable, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence against any of these Regulations has been committed, he may arrest without warrant anyone whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.
The position is by no means clear, but as a lawyer I would say that at the very least a picket could be taken in overnight without anybody being able to do anything about it.
I mention these matters not to say that emergency powers should not be taken, although it is my view that they are somewhat premature in the present situation, but to warn the country of the seriousness of the situation. This is a strike which could easily spread, and no one in his right senses wants to see it spread.
I therefore say this to the Government. Having taken emergency powers and asked for the Regulations, they must use them with the utmost discretion. They must refrain from using troops at all until they become absolutely necessary. There are, as the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) rightly pointed out, many signs of good will among the dockers. There was the unloading of the cargo, to which the right hon. Lady referred, of radioactive fuel. There was the carrying of the children's luggage by the dockers at Swansea and the unloading of the perishable cargo of bananas at another part. All these are signs of good will remaining.
It is in these early stages that the court of inquiry has the best opportunity for making the greatest impact. Either the strike will be settled in this coming week, I would say, or it will go on for a long time, and no one would like to see that occur. Therefore, the Government are bound to pay regard to this fact, that, normally, introducing the strong arm of the Government into this kind of situation exacerbates it, and can cause it to be protracted for a long time, till there comes a second opportunity for settling it when the people on the two sides are pretty fed up with it.
Therefore, in this week particularly, the Government's handling of this situation will call for the utmost tact. I do not, for example, think that troops should be used even to unload perishable goods without the dockers being first of all given the opportunity to do so. Such steps are vastly important, and, as the Government cannot be everywhere, they will depend upon the tact and good sense of the people in charge on the spot, and so it is particularly important that the Government ensure that there are proper guidelines laid down so that the people on the spot do not rush into doing things which aggravate the whole situation for the country.
It seems to me that an extremely serious situation has arisen. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has been both complimented and criticised for the steps he has taken. I think he is in a very difficult situation. I myself have been considering what is the right function of a Minister in this kind of circumstance. What the man in the street fails to understand—and I share that failure to understand to a considerable extent—is this. If it is right to set up a top-line court of inquiry headed by one of the finest legal intelligences in this country, Lord Pearson, and a strong team is appointed to support him, why was it not right to do so before this situation had arisen; that is, before the strike had been called? It is common form. I know, for a court of inquiry to be appointed at this stage. Nevertheless, it is a serious flaw—is it not?—in our situation at the present time, and in our conduct of labour relations, that a strike has to be called before the court of inquiry is set up.
Figures were published in the Observer yesterday which conflict considerably with other figures I have heard quoted. In the Observer an estimate was made by somebody that the likely cost of the strike in loss on the rough trade balance in the first week would be £65 million, in the second week £77 million, and in the third week £80 million. I do not know whether the Government share the view that those estimates are fairly near the mark. Certainly it is a very serious matter for this country.
Therefore, I ask myself: is it right that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity should merely be


umpire in these circumstances? Is it right for him to sit back and take the view that the right course for him to take is merely to be umpire, merely the man who chairs the meetings, listening to both sides to ensure that both sides are fairly put, but does not lean on either side?
I have had many arguments with a number of people as to what the right function of the Minister is. I am persuaded that when the community is so involved as it is here, when the cost to the country is so great, and when one is dealing with a strike at a vulnerable spot, almost the most vulnerable spot in the economy of the country, the right thing for the Minister to do is to lean on one side if he thinks that side is being unreasonable. Otherwise, it seems to me, the country could be held to ransom. If the right hon. Gentleman succeeds, if the strike comes to an end quickly, if both sides come together—and they show no signs of doing so at the moment—he will, of course, have the plaudits of the country; but if this strike goes on and he has not leant on either side, and, if he has observed an unreasonable attitude on the part of one side or the other and he has done virtually nothing whatever about it, he will come in for heavy criticism indeed.
I take the view, having considered this matter, that the country has a real interest in this and that its view should be represented. How can it be represented in such talks except by the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity? I should like to ask this question, and I think it is important from the public's point of view. Did the right hon. Gentleman, before the strike was called, before the employers stated that they would not discuss matters any further, before they broke off negotiations, say to both sides, "Look, do not do that; I intend to set up a very high grade court of inquiry to inquire into this matter and surely you can continue discussions till that time at least"? I think it was incumbent on him to do that.
I repeat that I think the right hon. Gentleman is in a very difficult situation. One can have on the one side the criticism, which has been made in so many speeches, of the Prime Minister in the past when the Labour Party was in Government, that the Government intervened too much and too quickly, but there can

be the other criticism where, perhaps, the Minister does not throw his weight on one side when his own judgment and reason suggest to him that he should. I think, therefore, this is a very difficult matter to resolve.
It seems to me that one of the matters which must be of the greatest concern to this House, and, no doubt, will be a matter of inquiry by the Pearson court of inquiry, is the long time it is taking to implement the recommendations of the Devlin Report on the docks. Whose fault is this? It is something which the country is entitled to know. One can understand that the situation in the docks is by no means an easy one. Obviously, the docks are crying out for modernisation and for the containerisation programme to go forward. One understands that this costs a great deal of money. Is it right that some of the employers are unwilling to spend the money, or are unable to spend it, and that, therefore, their interest is in direct conflict with the interests of other employers in other areas?
On the one hand, the modernisation programme means not only that employees are redundant but that employers are redundant as well. On the other hand, behind any programme of modernisation there is the likely threat of redundancy for employees, and this is a very real threat, and I can understand dockers of 40 or 50 years of age working in, say, London, and seeing the containerisation development at Tilbury feeling very frightened about their future and their prospects. This one can fully understand. Therefore, they are likely to adopt an almost Luddite attitude to this matter, which has to be resolved by somebody. It is not enough merely for the two sides to attack each other when the crunch comes. I understand that the dockers at Felixstowe have determined to go on strike to show their solidarity with their fellow dockers when, perhaps, their interest truly lies in another direction.
In the same way there are modern employers in the docks who can see the advantages of modernising and the need to spend money and to go almost for the Devlin doctrine of "buying the book". I think there is a great deal to be said for the view that in the end this country will come to the situation where the book


has got to be bought, and the question really is: What is the price to pay? But these matters do not seem to me to be capable of resolution by simply a frontal clash between the unions on the one side and the employers on the other. Is it correct, for example, as a representative of the employers said at a dinner, that many of the employers wish to be nationalised? Was it a faux pas? Or was he representing the probable view of many of the employers in the docks? I am assured, sotto voce, that in fact he was. This may well be true. It would seem to me very odd that that view could be expressed at a dinner without there being a basis of truth behind it.
All these matters are of vital importance to the country, and what does alarm me is that this situation has got to the stage where there is a national emergency declared, which will cost a very great deal of money, and where a mistake by a minor official in a port could so exacerbate the situation as to cause the strike to spread a great deal. In these circumstances, what is the duty of any Government? Is it to stand on the sidelines and say that there their function is merely to act as umpire to ensure that the game is played according to the rules? This will not be the Government's view in four or six weeks' time if the strike continues. Even at this stage the Minister should make every effort to get the two sides talking together again. It may be that talk will not resolve the matter, but talk accompanied by an interim report from the court of inquiry might prevent the situation getting out of hand.
Suffice to say that the situation is of potentially tremendous seriousness for the whole country, and no one in the House can pass the Regulations with a light heart. If we have to do so, we have to do so, but we must realise that by so doing we are not providing a remedy. At best, we are trying to provide some means of first aid if the situation gets out of hand.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I support the Government in bringing in these powers. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said, we cannot do so lightly. These are serious measures and we must think carefully before supporting them. I have

given a lot of thought to this and, although I regret the need for them, I believe it is right for the Government to have these powers. Some of the measures may be counter-productive and likely to aggravate the position, and this we do not want to do. I am sure the Government will use the powers with great care only when it is necessary to do so.
The Government have a duty to protect the consumer and the national larder. We are a large family and a vast amount of food must come into the country to supply what British agriculture cannot produce. If anyone suffers, it will be the consumer and I hope that the Minister of Agriculture will watch the position of the consumer carefully. The Minister has already played a major part in the emergency. Although there was laughter from the Opposition about his visits to the markets. I think he was absolutely right to make those visits. He was firing a warning shot. There are people who will seek to take advantage of the situation, and it is right for the Minister to show that he means business by watching the position carefully. The Regulations are to a large extent concerned with maximum prices and the distribution of food, and the Minister has a real part to play. I am disturbed about reports of hoarding of certain foods, particularly oranges, and I have every confidence that my right hon. Friend will watch this situation carefully.
There had already been increases in prices which have nothing to do with the emergency but are entirely due to measures taken by the Socialist Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members need not shake their heads, this is a fact. Any grocer or greengrocer knows that prices have been rising for some time and will continue to do so because of the ridiculous policies of a Socialist Government of days gone by—not so long ago either. We are still reaping the effects of what they did. The previous Government have a heavy responsibility for these increases, and I hope that in winding up the debate it will be made clear that in many cases the increases are not because of the strike but because of the previous Administration.
One lesson which I hope the Government will learn from the emergency is


that it is futile to rely so heavily on the importation of food. We need a considerable increase in home production. It is the height of folly to rely on imported food to feed the country and stock up our larder. What powers has the Minister of Agriculture over agriculture as a whole and the production of food? If the strike continues, we shall be forced to rely more on the British farmer. I should like to know how much meat is in cold store, how long we can continue and what the exact position is.
I am disturbed to see that the price of New Zealand lamb is rising rapidly. I can see no reason why—[HON. MEMBERS: "The Socialist Government."] If hon. Members will contain themselves, I was not going to blame the Socialist Government. This may be a seasonal rise, but I doubt it. It is important that the Minister should keep his eye on the position. We rely far too heavily on imported bacon. It would be interesting to know what stocks we have and what encouragement can be given to home producers. It may be that some of the pig going into pork can be diverted into bacon. I hope that my right hon. Friend is watching the matter carefully. Eggs are imported in large quantities and I hope that the strike will finish this practice once for all. If there is anything we can produce and indeed ought to produce in this country, instead of importing them, it is eggs.
The Minister should also watch the situation in regard to horticultural products. We could do without some of the heavy luxury imports. For example, I do not see why we cannot use our own home-produced food instead of importing such a vast amount. We must consider our balance of payments, which was a problem under the Socialist Government, and it is important to see that we do not import unnecessary food. The strike may be a way of making clear to the nation how important it is to rely more on home products rather than on imports.
There are three or four Regulations about which I am a little concerned. Regulation 12 deals with the transport of petroleum spirit, and I hope that the Government will realise the tremendous reliance placed by British agriculture

on diesel fuel. Since almost every farmer has a tractor that uses this fuel our food cannot be produced if supplies run out. I should like an assurance from the Government that there will be no shortage of diesel fuel and that this commodity will be treated as a matter of high priority, so that agriculture may continue to play its part and to produce the food we need.
I should like to draw attention to Regulation 17, which deals with the distribution of solid fuels. Again, we in the rural areas rely very much on these fuels. Owing to the mess and lack of planning on the part of the previous Government, solid fuels are at present in short supply. It seems to me, as a simple rural Member, crazy that in Britain solid fuel, coal and so on, should be in short supply. It is most important to have solid fuels available in the South-West. If the emergency continues, I hope that the Government will watch the situation carefully. It is ridiculous that anthracite dust is being exported and then being brought back to this country in the form of briquettes. This material is coming to the South-West, and if it is denied to us we shall be in a worse situation than we are at present.

Mr. Arthur Latham: May I ask the hon. Gentleman, as a simple rural representative, if he could enlighten me about the language he is using? He has referred to the Minister watching grocery and greengrocery prices and has expressed the hope that the Minister will keep an eye on the price of New Zealand lamb. He has just asked the Minister to watch carefully the position of solid fuel supplies. Instead of asking for the Government to watch matters and keep an eye on them, does he not advocate positive action to deal with these problems?

Mr. Mills: I thought that was the whole point of this debate. This is what the Regulations are all about. My right hon. Friend has powers to deal with these matters and I am suggesting that, if the situation gets worse, he will use them.
Regulation 19 deals with the maximum prices for animal feedingstuffs. Tremendous rises have already occurred as a direct result, though hon. Members opposite will not like it, of Socialist Government.

Mr. Orme: What has this to do with the Regulations?

Mr. Mills: If you ask the trade they will tell you that is true. We hope that during the emergency the Minister will watch very carefully the increase in the cost of animal feedingstuffs. British agriculture is already finding it difficult to cope with the increases which have already occurred.
I will repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech. [HOM. MEMBERS: "No."] Hon. Members opposite will have to take it, though they may not like it. They will have to put up with these things now. I believe that these powers are necessary. I hope they will be used with great care. I should like to emphasise that some of them could be counterproductive and do more harm than good. In spite of what hon. Members opposite say, I hope that my right hon. Friend will continue to watch very carefully what is going on and take action where necessary in the interest of the consumer.

7.56 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: From the very first day I came into this House, which is now a long time ago, I have never subscribed to the theory, which I have heard advanced many times over the years, and which today was urged by the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), that when a strike is in progress the House should not discuss its merits for fear of exacerbating the situation. It seems to be an idiotic doctrine that we cannot talk about a strike when it is on for fear of exacerbating it and we cannot talk about it when it is coming to an end because there is no point in talking about it when it has ended.
It has been said that this is one of the most important problems faced by the country. I thought that the purpose of this House was to talk about important problems which were facing the country. According to the Order Paper, we shall shortly be talking about the distribution of the levy on cinematograph films. I am sure that is important, but not as important as the present situation in the docks. We shall also be talking about the Weights and Measures Act (Amendments of Schedules 1 and 3) Order 1970. That is important, but if we are able to talk about that matter, then we must be able to talk about the present situation in the

docks. We should not continue with the fiction that there is an area of industrial relations which is one of the most significant factors affecting the economy but it is taboo as a subject for discussion by the House of Commons until all the dies have been cast and nothing we can say will make a ha'p'orth of difference.
Having staked a general claim to talk about the strike, I intend now not to do so, I intend to talk about the emergency and these Regulations which are being made under the Emergency Powers. I wish to discuss the purposes for which the Regulations will be used.
The powers conferred on the Government by the Regulations are very great indeed. They are virtually totalitarian. The sequestration of land and chattels—and incidentally, although I am not a lawyer, I understand that by law one's wife is a chattel—and many other powers given to the Government are totalitarian. We should be very concerned about putting such powers into the hands of the Government, because unless we change our minds in four days' time Parliament will be going off and leaving them to it without any necessity for them to account for anything they do under these powers.
This is especially important when we see what is said in Regulation 36(1) under which these powers can be extended:
Any power conferred by these Regulations to make an order includes power to revoke or vary the order by a subsequent order.
That is not merely a blank cheque. It is a blank cheque on a revolving credit: it can continue virtually indefinitely.
When one is considering whether to give such huge powers to people who, within a few days, will be in a position to exercise them without public accountability, one has to ask two questions. First, to what sort of people are we giving these powers? Secondly, in the light of what we know about the sort of people that they are, what are the best guesses that we can make of the ways in which and the purposes for which they will exercise the powers?
Under the powers, they could take some steps of which I would warmly approve. Supposing, contrary to the wishes of all hon. Members, the strike were prolonged for such a length of time that food shortages became serious. Under these


powers, the Government could institute rationing. If they decided that it was necessary, I would approve. If food is short. I would prefer to see it shared by a fair system of rationing than to know that it was rationed by the purse. The Government could use these powers to exercise such price control measures as become necessary to ensure that no one profiteers and racketeers. If the Government took such measures, I would warmly approve.
I do not think that they will do it. I do not think that they can do it. If they did it, it would make nonsense of all that they have been saying in the last few years, especially in the election campaign. Over the years they have been saying that they do not believe in Governments interfering with market mechanisms. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) said today that the greatest protection for the consumer is the operation of free competition—as though in Covent Garden or Smithfield there has been for many years anything but the most imperfect competition. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite say that it is not necessary to have Governments interfering with the market, fixing prices, controlling this and that, and intervening. They want less Government intervention, and they say that competition is the great protection. How can they say that and then attempt to control prices? The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been engaged today on a Cook's tour of the markets. I wonder what he did when he got there, what he looked at, whether he looked into any books, whether he traced through any consignments and did any comparison over a few day of prices charged.
In 1966, when there were shortages, I conducted an investigation, albeit in a very humble way. I did not have available to me the facilities which are made available to a Minister. However, I can get into the Canary Wharf of West India Dock whenever I want to, and I can talk to the men there. During that strike, there were allegations of racketeering by some people, notably the dockers themselves, and I followed through a number of consignments from the time that they were purchased. I discovered what happened to them, where they went when they were sold, which parts of what consignments were sold on which days

and for what prices. That is the only way to do it.
Some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have used the argument which I heard on Mr. de Manio's radio programme this morning. They say that there is a law of supply and demand and that if supplies are short or threatening to be short when demand is great, prices are forced up and no one does wrong by increasing prices. I do not accept that. If a man has a shipment of meat, fruit or vegetables and is paid X shillings for it, and if his normal mark up is 15 per cent., his normal selling price is X shillings plus 15 per cent. If demand then increases so that instead of selling his shipment over six days he sells it over four days, he has still paid X shillings for it. Just because he has customers queuing for it, there is no reason why he should charge more than the price he paid plus his normal mark up. If out of one and the same shipment, part was sold in the market last Wednesday at one price and another part on Thursday at a high price, that has nothing to do with the law of supply and demand. It is sheer racketeering.
The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) has just figured out that differences in price between one day and another for the same consignment are the fault of the Socialist Government who went out of office a month ago. I do not know how he figures out that one, but he is very imaginative.
In the last few days, not only has it been possible to see two different markups on successive days on goods from the same consignment. There has been a generalised change of mark-up spread overall because goods are short. A markup is meant to cover a man's handling costs, wages, lighting, heating and the rest of it. They do not change from day to day. It follows that any increase in the markup from one day to the next is as much a racket as an increase in the selling price on goods from the same shipment which have been bought at the same price.
Do the Government intend to take no action in this respect? Did the Minister follow through any consignments today with a view to seeing where they were delivered, what price was paid, and whether different prices were charged for


different parts of the same shipment on successive days?

Sir Elwyn Jones: He was too busy looking at the television cameras.

Mr. Mikardo: My right hon. and learned Friend is probably right. The right hon. Gentleman was too busy staring at the television cameras following him to do anything so mundane as flicking through a file of invoices. But that is the sort of detective work that has to be done if the Government are to exercise price control.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot do that. They cannot disapprove of the man who sells goods for 12s. on Wednesday but charges 13s. on Thursday for goods which he has bought at the same price. That is the system which they always advocate. That is what they mean when they talk about enterprise and initiative. Of course, it is exercising initiative and enterprise to gain as much as possible out of any situation, no matter at what cost to the community—

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: In the hon. Gentleman's analysis, has he not overlooked the fact that when supplies are short overheads may run on undiminished? There must be factors of which a supplier has to take account, such as higher overhead costs and a smaller throughput. Then again, the cost of the reception of goods into a market may be increased simply because the conveyor may have to return empty if there is no outgoing load to offset costs. The hon. Gentleman did not bring that sort of factor into his analysis.

Mr. Mikardo: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his lesson in cost accounting. It was one which I took about 40 years ago when I studied the subject in great depth and, because I am a little older than him, perhaps some time earlier than he made the same studies. I do not need the lesson.
What the hon. Gentleman says is right over a long term, but it cannot apply from one day to the next. That is what I am talking about. That diminution of volume does not arise when one is extracting from stock. There is a great dif-

ference between selling ex stock and selling against anticipation of future incoming deliveries. When I looked at the matter in 1966 I took those and other factors into account. They have not yet operated. They might in a week or 10 days. I see no protection for the consumer against racketeering from the bland, lady bountiful, sightseeing public relations exercise of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. That is why I do not believe that the Government will exercise price control. They cannot.
Let us get down to hard cases. Why do they want it? They want it for one reason—to put the troops in. It is as simple as that. The rest is all fairy tale, all flannel. They want these emergency powers—19 pages of them—just to put in the troops. That is what it is all about. They could have done it in a simple one-page regulation. It was clever of the Government to copy the Labour Government's 1966 Regulations, because it makes it difficult for those who then supported those Regulations—that does not include me—to vote against the Regulations now. It was clever of them to do it, but they could have done it in one page. It is all about putting in the troops.
I should like now to say a word about that. I made some criticism of some of the observations of the hon. Member for Torrington. However, I am in complete agreement with one of his points. The hon. Gentleman said that the exercise of some of these powers—he said this twice—could aggravate the situation instead of doing any good. I have no doubt that the exercise of some of these powers could aggravate the situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that they could be used to prevent picketing. The hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Robert Cooke) said that they could not because of the proviso in paragraph 34. However, he is not right, as the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) reminded him. A man is protected by the proviso in paragraph 34 only if he is
peacefully persuading any other person or persons to take part in, a strike.
But that is not the only reason why men may picket. They might picket to try


to persuade people not to take part in the strike, not to deliver goods to the employers of those on strike or to take away the goods of those employed. A man could be nicked for that.
As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said, a man could be nicked without any charge or explanation under these very wide powers. If within sight of some soldiers a striker walks along holding up a board saying, "Soldiers, do not blackleg on your fellow workers", he can be nicked. The Regulations have so specified.
That is not the worst infringement of civil liberty. One infringement of civil liberty in the Regulations which leaves me absolutely breathless with amazement is paragraph 29(2), which says:
No person shall, for any purpose prejudicial to the public safety, be in, or in the vicinity of, any premises used or appropriated for the purposes of essential services".
We would all agree with
for any purpose prejudicial to the public safety".
I agree that nobody should be on such premises if his purpose is to prejudice public safety. But sometimes we might have to figure out what his purpose was.
It goes on to state that if a person
was present in, or in the vicinity of, the premises concerned"—
this is the important part—
the prosecution may thereupon adduce such evidence of the character of that person … as tends to show that he was so present for a purpose prejudicial to the public safety.
I am not a lawyer. When I speak on these matters, which is seldom, I do so with the greatest diffidence and in all humility. However, I should guess that I am right in thinking that there is no provision remotely comparable with this anywhere in British law. According to these Regulations, if my hon. Friend the Member for Walton were to walk across the road in front of the West India Dock gate he could be nicked, and the prosecution, when he appeared in court the following day, could say: "We know this man. He supported the seamen when they were on strike. He is a bad character. So what is he doing round the West India Dock? He can be there only for the purpose of blowing up the dock gate."
As I understand our law, a man cannot be convicted on character assassination.

But that is precisely what it says in terms: that an assessment of a man's character is made to decide whether he is guilty of an offence. Because the prosecution cannot prove the purpose for which he was there, it uses an assessment of his character as an article of proof.
These are very great powers indeed. That is why I say that I agree with the hon. Member for Torrington that in some circumstances their exercise could aggravate the problem.
I come to my last point. What will happen if the troops go in? First, we shall not get the kind of co-operation which the dockers are already showing and have shown in respect of particular difficulties. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton mentioned the work that they are doing to make sure that the off-shore islands—the Isle of Man, Orkney and Shetland—are not starved out. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery listed a number of other things which they are doing out of sheer good will and to the prejudice of their dispute action. I am sure that if the Government were to say to them, "There is some perishable cargo; what do you think about it?", there is no reason to suppose that they would not be equally reasonable. If I were a docker and somebody came to me at this moment with that request, I would say, "Yes, I will shift the perishable cargo." But if somebody came to me at 25 minutes to 12 tonight and asked me, I would say, "No, I will not, because you have taken powers to do something on the assumption that I shall not be co-operative. If that is how you feel about it, I will make your wish come true. I will not be co-operative."
If the Government put in the troops, first, they will lose the present co-operation of the dockers. Second, they will not get a lot of cargo shifted. It is not easy to shift cargo. It is a standard illusion among people who have never been down the hold of a cargo ship that all one needs is a strong pair of arms, a strong pair of legs and a broad back. That is not so. There is a knack in shifting cargo and in moving heavy weights. It is a different knack according to the weight and shape of the cargo. Dockers learn this over the years and do it instinctively. A hundred soldiers will not shift in a day the cargo that 10


dockers will shift. They will get in each other's way.
I make the unhappy prophecy—I am sure it will come true if put to the test, but I hope that it will not be—that if ever troops are moved into the docks, on the very first day a large proportion of them will go sick; some of them with strained backs, and some of them with hernias, because they will pick things up the wrong way. They do not have the knack of handling these goods. Very little cargo will be shifted, with the result that we shall get the worst of all worlds. We shall get a loss of co-operation by the dockers, and the maximum provocation, merely for the lifting of very little cargo, if any. In any case, the T. & G.W.U., if it wants to, can stop the use of these troops. I do not think that it will, but it could stop even the dockers shifting cargo, because all that is necessary is to bring out the lock gate men, and then nothing else matters.
The whole thing is a nonsense. This is a huge edifice of 19 pages built on a single thing which is a nonsense. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Walton. I shall not give the Government these powers because I do not trust them to use them with discretion and sensibly. If weapons are being given out, one takes note of the character of the people to whom those weapons are being given. I shall do my bit of character study now. I would give a brick to a professional bricklayer, but not to a professional smash-and-grab raider. I would give a stick of dynamite to a professional borer of tunnels, but not to a professional blower of other people's safes. I am not suggesting that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are literally smash-and-grab raiders and blowers of safes, but I am suggesting, and I hope that it is not out of order, that, metaphorically, they will go around chucking their weight about in a very delicate industrial situation.
The likely outcome of their use of these Regulations, almost certainly not this week, but after the House has risen and we cannot call them to account, will be to give the maximum of provocation, with the minimum of protection for the citizen. It is on those grounds that I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walton, will

oppose the passing of these Regulations tonight.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I dislike these Regulations, and it should be no surprise to the House that I dislike them, because they run counter to my entire political philosophy, and my dislike of them is nothing to the dislike which I am sure inspires my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo). I am surprised that he dislikes these Regulations, because he is a Socialist, and they are a complete blueprint for ultimate Socialism—[Interruption.]—Oh, yes, indeed. These Regulations are the modern Czechoslovakia, and that is why I dislike them. I was surprised to hear that the hon. Member for Poplar dislikes them, because he is a Socialist, as I am not, but to do him credit, I thought that it was very honest and straightforward of him, because he extricated himself at the end by saying, in effect, that if we were Socialists he would not mind, but because we are Conservatives he does not trust us to have these powers. That, I think, is the nub of the argument in this debate. I think that it is very honest of the hon. Gentleman, and quite right in the circumstances that he should vote against these Regulations.
The hon. Gentleman says, if I may enlarge slightly on his argument, that if we could have a Socialist world, with a Socialist Government, these Regulations might be acceptable, but if there is a Conservative Government he does not trust them with these powers, and therefore he will vote against them. That is a sound argument, and the hon. Gentleman is right to vote against the Regulations.
I shall vote for the Regulations for the exactly opposite reason. I dislike them, but I trust the Government with these powers.

Mr. Mikardo: Surprise, surprise.

Mr. Iremonger: It is not surprising at all. That is what the debate is about. That is what the General Election was about, and we won it. The people trust us. We do not want the trust of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We are satisfied


with their sneers and their laughter coming from their natural home, in opposition to a democratic Government. I am satisfied to have these Regulations, with regret that they should be necessary, in the hands of a Conservative Government, and it is interesting to note that this is almost an extreme Left-wing monopoly attendance at the debate, apart from those hon. Members on this side of the House. It is understandable that these Regulations should be objected to from the other side of the House, for the reasons that I have stated.
I should like to follow the hon. Member for Poplar a little further on the points that he made. In the first place, I should like to set everything that he said in the context in which these emergency Regulations are laid, and which the hon. Gentleman did not do the Government the fairness to observe. These are Emergency Regulation laid in the context of an emergency, and the hon. Gentleman rather seemed to overlook that.
Next, I should like to take him up on the first point that he made. He said that the House ought to discuss the merits of industrial disputes, especially when they were important. The hon. Gentlemen is entitled to that point of view, but I should not like him to put it on record and to follow him immediately in debate without asserting that I regard that as a fundamental error. I do not think that it is the function of the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity—and I certainly do not think that it is the function of this House—to concern itself with the merits of industrial disputes. There are two schools of thought about this. That is my school of thought. The hon. Member for Poplar and most hon. Gentlemen opposite who are following this debate so attentively take the opposite view, and I think it is fair that our respective positions should be stated.
The hon. Member for Poplar said that because the issue is important we should talk about it. To follow that argument to its logical conclusion, one should say that if the issue is important in a major dispute between parties in a civil trial the issue should be debated in the House. There is an argument for that point of view, but I think that that is a fundamental constitutional heresy. It is the

duty of this House to establish the framework of the law, and then to keep out of it. It is the function of the House—especially hon. Members on this side—to keep a sharp, critical and hostile eye on the Executive, but it is not the function of the House, having laid down the framework of the law and of industrial relations—as I hope we shall do shortly in greater detail—then to enter the question of detailed administration. [Interruption.] It is always worth listening to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme).

Mr. Orme: I am sorry that I intervened from a sitting position, but I thought that the hon. Member was contradicting his earlier premise, when he said that the House should not discuss industrial matters. Now, apparently, he wants to discuss industrial matters through legislation and direct interference.

Mr. Iremonger: I am grateful to the hon. Member. I obviously did not make clear the fundamental distinction that I was trying to make. It is right for the House to discuss the framework of the law, in terms of industrial relations, tort, contracts, and so on, but once that framework is legislatively established it is not the function of the House to enter into the details of its administration in the courts of justice or in terms of negotiation between parties. That is my distinction, and I am as emphatic about getting the framework right as I am about keeping out of discussion on it once it has been got right.
The hon. Member for Poplar discussed in detail the merits of the powers that these Regulations give to my right hon. Friend and other Ministers. He said that they gave them totalitarian control. That is true. The hon. Member taxed my hon. Friends and me for supporting these totalitarian powers—powers to control prices, for example—because, as the hon. Member said, it runs counter to Conservative political philosophy, which hopefully embraces the functioning and benign influence of a free economy and the market. The hon. Member pointed out that this is in contradistinction to Conservative political philosophy. I should have thought that that was childishly obvious. He did not set this argument


in the proper context. These are emergency powers to deal with an emergency. It would have been just as fair to tax Sir Winston Churchill, in the course of the Second World War, with being inconsistent and untrue to his Conservative philosophy in terms of the even more dictatorial powers that he and his Government sought to enable them to carry on the war.
These powers place totalitarian control in the hands of the Government. That is why I dislike them. I disliked the wartime emergency legislation. But the hon. Member does us less than justice if he takes the point entirely out of context and says that we should object in the short-term of the emergency to powers that are much more repugnant to us than to him when they are in the hands of any Government in the long-term. The hon. Member also said that we were giving the Government formidable powers and then going off for a month. That is a fair point. If we were giving the Government these powers in the middle of a session their existence would not be a frightfully good argument for going off immediately and not continuing. One could say that as a result of the emergency powers taken by the Government the House should not go into Recess at all.
That point might be argued for a minute or two when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House tables the Motion for the Adjournment for the Recess. There are arguments to be advanced about it. I should be happier if we could bring Ministers to the House every day during the emergency. One should therefore ask oneself whether one should oppose the Motion for the Adjournment. I shall consider my attitude to that in due course. [Laughter.] There is no need for hon. Members opposite to laugh at that. The Motion will be tabled and I am entitled to consider my attitude to it. I am entitled to tender advice to my right hon. Friend. If hon. Members opposite think that I have made the wrong decision by not voting against the Adjournment Motion—if that is what I decide—they will be quite entitled to say that I have acted wrongly. But that is a matter for other considerations.
The point that the hon. Member for Poplar overlooked—or did not choose to mention—is that these Regulations continue in force only for a month. We have to come back anyway if the emergency continues after a month, precisely because these Regulations will have to be renewed by the authority of the House. Then, of course, there will be a great day of reckoning. Everything that my right hon. Friends do in the meantime under these Regulations will be done under the shadow of the reckoning which will take place when they ask the House to renew them. Therefore, the hon. Member made a bad point, as the lawyers say. We should be satisfied with the very proper provision in the Regulations that they cannot remain in force for more than a month.
One should, because it has been rather lost sight of in this debate, recapitulate the object of the Regulations. That is to ensure that the life of the country shall go on and that no sectional interest, however virtuous it may be in the eyes of some hon. Members, shall threaten it, and that the Government shall have the powers and be able to use them if necessary to unload food supplies, among other things, to feed the people.
Of course, we are all very tickled by the suggestion of the hon. Member that soldiers cannot lift heavy weights. I have noticed this disability only too often myself. Having been in the Royal Navy, I was always extremely surprised if any soldiers managed to do anything. I should have thought that the Government would have been much better advised to bring in the Royal Navy to assist here. We do not get hernias lifting heavy weights in confined spaces. The Royal Navy would be able to move those heavy weights and would just be thankful that things were not moving about. We are accustomed to lifting heavy weights when the deck is not steady.
If I may make a prophecy it is that, if the unhappy situation arises in which these powers have to be used when the Army or the Royal Navy is brought in to move supplies—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Royal Air Force?"] Not the Royal Air Force, no—I do draw the line at some things.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order.

Mr. Iremonger: With great respect to you, Sir. It had escaped me for a moment I was getting, if not out of order, at least on to very dangerous ground. The Royal Air Force is, of course, accustomed to dealing with more subtle matters, which they do with great expertise. It would be an abuse to bring them in for these matters. But I think that the hon. Member for Poplar will be very disappointed if, unhappily, these powers have to be used. He will find that, if troops are brought in, they will do their duty satisfactorily.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who has now left the Chamber, made an extraordinary suggestion. He seemed to think that it would have been much better—and that it would be better as a general practice for Secretaries of State for Employment and Productivity—if my right hon. Friend had set up this court of inquiry earlier. I find this hard to follow. If that were the idea, Ministers would have to jump in as soon as they could. The least shadow of an industrial dispute and they would have to say, "You must not discuss this between yourselves: we shall set up a court on inquiry". This seems to be the counsel of madness.
Obviously, it must be left to those primarily concerned, the parties, to negotiate, until the negotiations break down. No Minister has any right to anticipate the failure of negotiations. He should not set up an inquiry until it is patently necessary. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are very much against any interference with the rights of trade unionists, would equally resent this premature intervention by a Minister.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: The hon. Gentleman says that hon. Members here have expressed their view. All those who have expressed their view immediately left. It is only those who have not expressed their view who are still here.

Mr. Iremonger: That has struck me, but I did not want to rub it in. To be fair to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, he remained in his seat until at least two speeches after he had sat down. There comes a time when even if one does not want supper, one

might wish to have a look at the report upstairs of one's speech.
Another heresy which is quite popular on the benches opposite—this came out clearly in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)—is the suggestion that the Minister of Labour should not be neutral in matters of this kind. Having jumped the first insuperable fence, which is getting the Minister into the negotiations, some hon. Gentlemen opposite would have him not be neutral but leaning on one side if the national interest is involved. This doctrine is dangerous.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Is the hon. Gentleman certain that he is not taking the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) out of context? I suggest that my hon. Friend did not mean that the Minister of Labour should lean on one side or the other for the sake of it, but that he should do that to keep the discussions going, so that agreement might be reached. In this case, one side walked out—it did so publicly, on television—and refused, as late as Friday night, to discuss any further prospects of a settlement while the men were on strike.

Mr. Iremonger: I think the hon. Gentleman is right and that I may have done a slight injustice in equating what the hon. Member for Walton said with the point I was criticising in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. The hon. Member for Walton I believe said that the Government should lean on the employers, not necessarily to give way on the terms, but to go on negotiating and to ensure that unions like the T. & G.W. were consulted.
However, I do not think that I am doing the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery an injustice. I understood him to say that the Government should not be neutral but should lean on one side or the other if the national interest was involved. This seems a dangerous doctrine because it means that if there is a dispute in an industry which is vital to the national interest, such as the seamen or the dockers, they could have a stranglehold on negotiations and a special call on the good offices of the Minister.


They could, by pitching their demands too high—there might be a temptation to do that—feel certain that the Minister would lean towards them because they could hold the country to ransom. I thought, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion was not only dangerous, but somewhat naive.
Like the hon. Member for Poplar, the hon. Member for Walton said he would vote against these Regulations, and that is obviously right from his point of view, which is different from mine, and I shall be voting against him. I am glad that there will be voting on this issue. I wish that there had been the same enthusiasm when on an earlier occasion, a vote was called on an issue when there was a difference of opinion between the then Labour Government and their supporters. The hon. Member for Walton said that he was a little ashamed of that, but it is a good thing that matters in the House should be brought to a Division. Personally, I am sorry that the Labour Government were not brought down a little earlier by voting according to convictions of the kind which the hon. Member for Walton was explaining.
He thought that the House should not rise until the inquiry had reported. I should have thought that that would be a rather bad thing. What are we to do—to sit here meeting every day fabricating business so that we can bite the heels of the inquiry? I should have thought that the first requirement for the inquiry was that it should not be unduly harried to make its report. It may well be that when the inquiry has reported, it will be thought in the general interest that the House should be recalled to discuss the report, but that is another matter. For the House to sit simply so that the report may be hastened would be a poor thing.
The crux of the whole debate, which was brought out in the speech of the hon. Member for Walton and which was the point made by the hon. Member for Poplar and which is the real division between the two sides of the House, in so far as they will vote—I do not know whether it subsists between the two Front Benches—is that the hon. Member for Walton thinks that the Regulations are objectionable because he does not trust the Government. I think that the country as a whole does trust the Government.
The kind of people whom I represent—and I understand fairly well how they feel—want Regulations of this kind in circumstances of this kind in an emergency of this kind to be brought in at last. There is a feeling in the country that for far too long too many people with great industrial power, such as these interested parties, have been able to play ducks and drakes with the national economy without the Government ever being prepared to take powers which would secure the continuation of national life.
There is clearly a great temptation for people like the dockers to exploit their undoubted power. It would be quite wrong for the Government to take powers to interfere with ordinary industrial negotiations and to infringe freedom in that way, but when it comes to a condition like this in which, unless the employers give way, they will have the entire odium of bringing national life to a halt, it is only right that the Government should hold the ring by seeing that central services are maintained.
If the threat which is made to the people and to the Government by the dockers is, "If you use the powers, if you bring the troops in, or whatever it may be, we shall have a general strike"—and that is what has been suggested and it is a general strike that we are talking about—if, as the hon. Member for Poplar said, if the troops are brought into the docks, the dockers will not help to load bananas for the Isle of Man, or whatever it is, it is my sense of the feeling of the people—and, like every other hon. Member, I have been in close touch with them on these matters during the General Election—that they will say, "If that is the threat, if that is what you are going to do, we do not want it, but we are fed up with always running away; we have survived worse and we shall survive this."
The people are right about that. The Government are right to have taken a stand.

Mr. Callaghan: What stand?

Mr. Iremonger: I hope that the former Home Secretary will not quibble about words. He and I know what we are talking about. We are talking about reports which mean that the ultimate


threat is to bring national life to a standstill. That is undoubtedly a blatant threat, but although there is a risk, although there is the cost of the strike to be reckoned with, there is also the cost in the long run of giving way. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) seems to want to assist me.

Mr. Callaghan: No, I do not want to assist the hon. Member at all, I promise him. I wonder what it was that the Government were supposed to be taking a stand on. I think he would be giving more help if in his peroration the hon. Member asked the Government what stand they intend to take on the Pearson Report when they get it. The Regulations are clear; it is what they do about the issue that matters.

Mr. Iremonger: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman intervened. He evidently was not attending to what I said. That is what the whole debate is about. That is what the debate in the last 20 years has been about—what should the Government do when they are frightened by a threat of a strike? They should do absolutely nothing but determine that the strikers should not get their way by threatening the national survival. They should say, "Until you have sorted this out we shall see that the life of the nation goes on".
The cost of giving way, as Conservative and Socialist Governments have done, by leaning on the employers throughout is the evil of which we have to take account. All politics are choices of evil. We have chosen the evil of leaning on the employers and giving way for years. The time has come not to lean any more.

Mr. Callaghan: The Government have set up a court of inquiry. They have intervened. I ask the hon. Gentleman to address his mind to this. Is he saying that when they receive the report the Government should do nothing with it, but throw it to the lions and allow the unions and the employers to get on with it and stand back even though the consequences are a disastrous strike, while they have the recommendations in their hands? If that is so, the hon. Member will find little support from those who put him back into Parliament.

Mr. Iremonger: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and I are seeing the inquiry

in totally different terms. I do not see this inquiry as something which will tell the Government what to tell one party or the other to the dispute or as a sort of weapon to make an agreement and enforce it upon the parties. The purpose of the inquiry, if it is to serve any useful purpose, is to clarify for the benefit of the parties because, perhaps, their vision is clouded by interests and passion, and clarify for the nation, who may fairly judge between the parties, what the issues are and what the rights of the matter are.
I do not want the inquiry to be in any way a recommendation for the Government to impose a settlement. Not at all. I want the settlement to come out of the logic of the situation by free negotiation between the parties or by the abandonment of the strike when either side decides that it cannot keep it on any more. It is better to face it in this way now, as it should have been faced in many similar circumstances in the last 20 years. The long-term result of giving way now, which would be the result of not passing these Regulations, would be infinitely more damaging to the life of the nation than any damage which might accrue if the strike went on.

8.54 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) has epitomised the fundamental difference which exists between a large number of hon. Members on this side of the House and hon. Members opposite. The reality of industrial life at the moment is that we cannot contract out of discussing such issues as this. We are discussing this issue because the Government have brought in an Order to which we have to say either aye or no. The Government seek these emergency powers because they believe that a national emergency exists arising from this industrial dispute.
During the last few years we have had many debates on industrial relations and legislation in connection therewith, because industry is central to our economy. It must not be forgotten that the dockers have been discussing this issue for 26 months. Five meetings have finished in disaster, because the employers refused to discuss the basic rate of £11 1s. 8d. The dockers gave 40 days' notice of a strike. During the whole of


that period nothing happened. As we on this side said in our debates on industrial relations, the so-called cooling-off period achieves nothing, as is shown by the experience in Australia and the United States. Everybody waits for the cooling-off period to end, and then battle is joined.
In the 40-day notice of strike period no move was made. No inquiry was set up. There was no form of industrial conciliation. Everybody recognises that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, in his rôle as chairman in the opening stages of the discussions which took place just before the strike began, tried to bring about some form of conciliation, as his Department is bound to do. I am glad that it is returning to its proper rôle, but this did not happen during the 40-day waiting period.
Important questions during our debates on industrial legislation were the proposal for a 40-day or a 60-day waiting period and the question of a secret ballot. What would be the point of having a ballot amongst dockers? They do not need pickets at the gates. A ballot would merely confirm overwhelming support for their case.
I represent an inland dock constituency of the port of Manchester where there are about 2,000 dockers. I talked with them during the recent election. I therefore know how difficult it is sometimes to convince the dockers that the rest of the community wants to be on their side. This is why the Labour Government proposed to nationalise the ports—to bring some sanity into the ports industry, not only from a commercial point of view, but, more important, from an industrial relations point of view.
The dockers work in an industry which is contracting before their eyes. There has been a 50 per cent. reduction in the labour force in 20 years. This process will continue. There is much modernisation, such as containerisation. In Manchester £8 million is being spent on a new container port. The dockers want some share in the prosperity which they are bringing about by their greater productivity and their reduced labour force. They will insist on getting their share.
It is no good hon. Members opposite talking about the average wage of £30 or £35 a week earned by dock workers with overtime and bonus payments. Dock workers have a basic wage of £11 1s. 8d. and fall-back pay of about £16. All this goes into the computation of the dock workers' earnings. The system of earnings is very complicated.
I represent a trade union in the engineering industry, which is only just moving away from the £10 basic rate. Next year it is to move on to a basic rate of £19. The piece-work earnings of skilled men are computed on a basic rate of 66s. This does not make sense to anybody outside that industry, and the system in the docks does not make sense to anybody outside the dock industry. But the dockers understand it. They know that their livelihood is tied up with basic rates, and they realise that the further they get away from the basic rate of £11 1s. 8d. to the higher earnings which they receive with overtime the more unrealistic their earnings seem to be.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: My hon. Friend will agree that the dockers can read and that they will know that Governments of both parties paid a former Tory Minister who is now part-time Chairman of the B.B.C. £57 per day, not per week, for an appointment involving two days a week. The dockers think that this is a little bit inflationary.

Mr. Orme: Industrial workers do not miss these points. When we debated the judges' salaries people thought that they had no effect outside. They should have asked the industrial workers about that point.
The dockers fear that their jobs are virtually disappearing before their eyes and, rightly, they are fighting to maintain their living standards. I have a great deal of sympathy with them. It might be said that some of their fears about nationalisation of the ports were not based on reality, and many of us wanted to see the Bill in question improved. Unless they get justice in respect of a claim which has been in the pipeline for over two years we shall run into trouble.
The Government have introduced these Regulations because, they claim, there is an emergency. Nobody would deny


that there is some sort of emergency, but does it warrant these powers, and will they resolve the emergency? As soon as the dock strike started the Pearson Committee was set up. I read over the weekend that Mr. Tonge expected the Pearson Committee to report by the end of this week. Jack Jones, the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, said that the committee should sit night and day until the report was produced. The production of the report will not mean the end of the strike. When the report has been produced, the employers and trade unions will have to get round the bargaining table and resolve the dispute. The two sides are so far apart on this issue that it will take a considerable report to resolve it. I believe, however, that this could be the basis of resolving the dispute.
In this delicate situation the Government have gone for emergency powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) have said, 19 pages of the Regulations are about the State having authority to put troops into the ports if necessary. The Government should have said to the country and to this House that they want the Pearson Report quickly and will press for it as soon as possible, even an interim report, if possible, before the Houses rises for the recess. They should accept the offer that the dockers have made. I do not think that the dockers have ever been more conciliatory in a dispute than they have been at this time. They have been conciliatory to the islands and to people and children who need care.
I do not say this without knowledge. I believe that if approaches were made to the Transport and General Workers' Union to move perishable goods where this can be proved to be necessary, the response would be there. This would go some way to ameliorate the situation and stop it from escalating. If, however, the troops once go in, we shall be in real trouble.
The troops were used in the 1945 period of a Labour Government, not throughout all the ports, but in the London dock strike. That has left behind bitterness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar has said, it was highly

inefficient. The work of a docker is highly skilled. People think that dock workers are some form of casual labour that is picked up off the street. The fact is that the job is handed down from father to son and becomes almost an inherent trade. It is a skilled trade and not semi-skilled. These people should be paid according to their skill and the work they do. We shall soon see whether they are paid too much when we put into the docks unskilled workers or troops, who will be asked to do jobs which they do not want to do and which will put them into an intolerable position.
Therefore, having set up the Pearson inquiry and got the two sides to agree to negotiate and give evidence as quickly as possible—and on a narrow reference, which it should be possible to resolve—the Government, instead of being precipitate and rushing in, should do their best to ensure that the report will be available quickly and clearly. I hope that it will lay a basis for the future.
It is criminal for anybody to suggest that anyone on this side of the House wants to see an extension of the strike or the strike last a day longer than is necessary. Many of us who have spent our lives in industry and have been in industrial disputes do not rush into these things lightly. We realise what they mean for our own people, the sacrifices that will be caused and the hardships that can be created. We are already beginning to see a break-through of racketeering in certain prices which will be exploited by unscrupulous people in our society.
Rather than go ahead as they propose, the Government should have taken a step back. They should have given an assurance that for this week no troops will be used, that they will urge the early implementation of the Pearson Report and that we should not have to vote on the Regulations tonight. As has been said before, we pass these Regulations, and then hand them over, not to Ministers who are, perhaps, sensitive to the situation and want to avoid trouble, but, perhaps, to some faceless people, perhaps little local bureaucrats in some port who could create difficulty which could escalate the whole trouble out of hand.
Some of us, therefore, will feel that we shall have to register our feelings by


a vote tonight against these Regulations. I know that this may not concur with what my right hon. Friend will be saying from the Opposition Front Bench, but I think he recognises that there are deeply-held convictions and views on this matter, and one is not taking one side or the other, but we are expressing quite honestly our views in this House where we ought to express our own views. It will be a warning to the Government that we feel that they are not handling this matter aright. We feel they have been too precipitate. We shall watch this situation. We cannot tolerate a position in which the strike unfortunately goes on but the House gets up for the Summer Recess and leaves these emergency powers in the hands of the Government. Such a thing will not have happened before.
I am hoping that the intransigence of the dock employers can be ended and that negotiations can start, if not immediately, then immediately we have the Pearson Report. I want to see, as everybody else does, an end to this dispute, and the Government would be foolhardy to take on the dockers or any other industrial workers, for that could only end in industrial anarchy. I do not believe the Government want that, but they could be manœuvred into a position from which it would be difficult for them to extricate themselves if the strike were to go on beyond next weekend. We have to try to bring it to an end, and it is on that basis that, like my hon. Friends, I shall feel obliged to vote against these powers.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. James Hill: We have heard an impassioned speech by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), and that is the danger of the situation: too much passion, too much heat in discussing something which is critical for the welfare not only of many millions of workers but for the economy of the country.
We have all heard that the dockers have been helping. This is true. I have been very conscious of the fact that at Southampton particularly, when a children's cruise ship came in over the weekend, the dockers co-operated in getting the children and the baggage away from the ship in the quickest possible time. There is co-operation there. We

must try to use this co-operation to the uttermost. We have seen it when food has been loaded for the various islands.
We have seen that it is not all black and white in the docks. The dockers are workers who have these fears that they will be oppressed. They are not going to be oppressed by the Conservative Government. These emergency powers are for precisely what they say, and that is to keep foodstuffs circulating within our country.
At Southampton there is a £14 million modernisation scheme. This must be to the benefit of the dockers of the future. We know that dockers like their jobs; otherwise they would not keep them as a family concern, son following father. My own fear is that this dispute may break up the family structure—which is a good thing—in the ports.
I would reply to the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) that there is fruit rotting at Southampton docks, several thousand tons of it, but I quite agree with him that the Army will suffer hernias and certainly a great number of backaches. But that is part and parcel of the job. However, we know that the dockers are skilled—and certainly the loading of container ships is a skilled job.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) wants the Government to lean on the employers, but the Conservative way of life, the commercial way of life, will mean that the employers will be leaned on by the commercial interests, and there is no reason for the Government to add additional pressure.
I hope that the emergency powers will facilitate control over the roll-on roll-off ferries, which will be used more extensively during the holiday season. The Minister may have to use the roll-on roll-off ferries completely for the containerisation of foodstuffs instead of for taking people for holiday trips to France. Transport Command may have to be used to airlift as much produce as possible.
I finish with a word of warning to the worthy trade unionists opposite. This is not a popular strike. The public will be bewildered by the idea of hon. Members threatening each other. There has been a spate of newspaper articles criticising the payment to dockers of subsidies in the form of supplementary benefits.


This is quite wrong and does not produce a conciliatory atmosphere. If these powers are to be used, they must be used as the last resort, and I feel sure that the Government will use them only as a last resort.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I listened to the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. James Hill) with more sympathy this evening than I did on Monday last when he asked whether it was not disgraceful to call out on strike men who were getting a basic wage of £37 10s. A week is a long time in politics, but the hon. Member has learned a great deal during the last seven days, and I congratulate him. This evening he has spoken about the spirit of conciliation. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) unfortunately remembered what he had to say a week ago. From now on the hon. Member for Southampton, Test must remember that what he says is taken down and will be used in evidence against him at any future opportunity.
My first task is to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant) on his maiden speech. He is well known to many of us as an expert industrial correspondent, and what he said fitted in with his experience on the issues he mentioned. He read a most remarkable letter to us. I congratulate my hon. Friend and hope that he will continue to take an interest in these matters.
I hope the Home Secretary will forgive me if I say that I thought he made rather a casual speech. He did not discuss any of the issues, although it is clear from the feeling in the House on this occasion and from past precedent that people are as much concerned with discussing the issues as with discussing the Regulations. I wish we had heard more about the Government's attitude on the issues, not so much on the merits as on the method of handling the situation. I raised this matter earlier this afternoon, and I want to come back to it, because there is a fundamental difference between some of us on this side of the House and some on the other side.
What is clear from listening to the debate and from the attitude of the trade unions and the employers is that the only people who have been anxious for a

strike are some backwoods Tories and the Economist, which is always batty on industrial matters anyway. Nobody seems to be anxious for a strike, and this is a great advantage to the Government. That is why I want to emphasise later that I think the Government have about a week in which to take advantage of this fluid situation which could be easily upset. I will come back to that a little later, because I want to press the Government on what their attitude is.
I am sure that when we see the Government's proposed industrial legislation we shall all draw lessons from this strike as to how that legislation would have affected it. My own preliminary view, on the basis of what we have heard of the Government's proposals, is that there is nothing in them which would have affected the issue of a strike in any way. On the face of it, it might seem to be superficially likely that it might have delayed the strike while the hearing took place, though we are not certain about that. It would have depended on the temper of the employers and the reaction of the men, but I doubt whether it would have averted it.
I hope that the Government, even at this late stage—and I have some confidence in the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity—will carefully consider the implications of what is happening in the country, as distinct from their preconceptions before they returned to office, on a number of these issues concerning industrial legislation. If they do consider the implications, we might avoid a substantial clash. Not that I mind a clash between the two sides, but I care very much about a clash which would embitter industrial relations and set them back. I ask the Government and the Home Secretary, as a senior Minister, to apply this dispute as a test case when they come to prepare their legislation and bring it before the House.
I see the responsibility of the House today as threefold. First, we must answer the question: is it proper for the Government to be given these powers? The second question, which is more an observation than a question, is that the House must remind the country of the tyrannical nature of the powers which are being taken by the Government. I use the word in a strict sense; the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) put it


perhaps in more purple language. But nobody on either side of the House should be ready to give any Government these powers without the country fully understanding how we are delivering ourselves into the hands of the Government. By handing over these powers we are giving the Government an all-embracing grip on the citizens of this country.
The third point—and this is where the Government have failed today because, broadly, the first point has been established—is that we as a House must probe the Government on their attitude towards the dispute. The Regulations, however important and tyrannical they are in one sense, will not end the dispute. They are merely a means, in the Government's view, of enabling the nation to survive while the dispute goes on. But the step is taken, and it is important that the Government should say more about it. This is why I felt that the Home Secretary, or, indeed, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, could have helped the House by explaining the Government's attitude to the future handling of the dispute.
I do not complain overmuch about what the Government have done so far. They have done what we would have done had we been in their position. We would have invoked the powers hoping not to use the Regulations. We would have set up a committee of inquiry. But we would also have indicated to the House our attitude on the committee of inquiry.
The Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has now pushed himself into the centre of the dispute. It is no good the hon. Member for Ilford, North saying that the Secretary of State must stand back and allow the market forces to play; allow each side to exhaust each other, with the nation becoming exhausted in the process, so that at the end of the day somebody would win. The Government conceivably could have taken that attitude, and it could be argued that was their attitude in the sense that the Minister has said that he has not leaned on either side. But the Government have now put themselves in the centre of the dispute. They have set up a court of inquiry, and Lord Pearson and his colleagues will report to them.
What, then, do they propose to do? To that question, we have had no answer and, to my mind, it is the most important issue. It is even more important than the Regulations, although I do not take away one word from what I said about the nature of the Regulations.
What will the Government do when they get the Report? Will they continue with the attitude that the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity has taken so far? The right hon. Gentleman says, "I sit here as an impartial chairman. I use my good offices with both sides. I listen to what they have to say. I keep down the temperature. I keep the discussion on an even keel. But I have no view." If the Government say that in the light of the Pearson Report, where do we get? Presumably the Pearson Report will say either that there is some merit in the dockers' claim for an increase in the basic rate or that there is not.
Supposing that it says that there is some merit in the claim. Supposing, then, that the employers still refuse to negotiate. After all, Mr. Tonge has been pretty forthright. While the men are on strike, he will not negotiate. I know that some hon. Members will say, "Very well, let it continue." However, I do not think that that is the general view of the House. I want to know whether that is the view of the Government, and I think that it is a fair question.
If we get a report recommending a change in the situation of the men and conceding that they have a case, will the Government remain neutral and sit between employers and employees without putting pressure on either side? if so, the week's breathing space that the Government have now will freeze, and the chance of unjelling it again will be extremely remote.
What the Government must do in the light of the Report, when they get it, is not only to get the two sides together; they have to take an attitude. They have to reach their own conclusions on the merits. After all, they have put themselves into the centre of dispute. They have set up the court of inquiry. Having set it up, they expect the report. They expect to receive the views of Lord Pearson and his colleagues. Having


seen them, it is the Government's job to reach some conclusions.
No one can say what those conclusions will be, but, in the light of them, will the Government press their view on the two sides and get them together? That seems to be a most important question. If the Government do not do that, I shall regard them as seriously responsible for the continuation of the dispute. I do not hold them responsible now, but this is the testing time, and they must make up their minds quickly. I ask for an indication of the Government's attitude on procedures for the future handling of this dispute, once they have the Report.
Another question which I must put concerns what I have called three times the tyrannical nature of the Regulations. I do not think that the Government are tyrants. After this afternoon's display on the Treasury Bench, no one could assume that we were dealing with tyrants. Certainly I do not think that my right hon. and hon. Friends ought to vote against rising for the Summer Recess, whenever the Government's proposal is put to us. It would be cruel to insist on the Government staying here to experience a Question Time every day like the one that we had today.

Mr. Mikado: I do not mind being cruel to them.

Mr. Callaghan: I have long suspected that my hon. Friend has a cruel streak in his nature though he has a kind heart underneath. But I ask him to be kind to his own Front Bench and not to force a Division tonight. I hope that he and his colleagues will not vote against the Regulations. Certainly the Opposition do not intend to divide the House. We believe that there are mischief makers—none of them in this House, of course—who would misconstrue a vote on this subject. If my right hon. and hon. Friends voted as an Opposition, people would argue that we were against the granting of these powers and therefore against the continuation of the life blood of the nation. We know that that is not true, so I make another appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends—

Mr. Swain: What would be the attitude of my right hon. Friend if he were in my position? I have two sons in the Army who may be called upon to unload ships, much against their will. If they

disobey orders, they will be subject to the rigid discipline of the Army. I have already written and asked them to disobey any instructions to assist in unloading ships—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I shall vote against the Regulations.

Mr. Callaghan: My hon. Friend is entitled to vote against the Regulations, but I expect that his sons have too much good sense to listen to their father. Certainly, he would not want to risk putting them in the glasshouse for six months to ease his conscience or anybody else's.

Mr. Swain: As a good union member I should be with them.

Mr. Callaghan: If my hon. Friend cares to join them I shall very much regret it, because I value his presence in the House too much to want that to happen.
I do not think that this is a Government of tyrants. Indeed, I do not think that they want to use these powers at all. The purpose of taking these powers is not to use them; it is to give an impression to the country that we have a dynamic, purposeful Government. They are bluffing—[Interruption.] Which is it? Do the Government intend to use these powers? If not, why are they taking them?

Mr. F. A. Burden: The Labour Government took them.

Mr. Callaghan: Do the Government intend to use them to put troops in? Is that their purpose? Or is it that they are taking precautions in case they are necessary? Is that what the Government are doing, or do they intend to use them?

An Hon. Member: Make your own speech.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the hon. Gentleman. When he has been here as long as I have, no doubt he will have made as many speeches.
I do not think that this is a determined effort to use the powers. I have quoted the one to the use of which I would have the least objection—namely, food prices. I asked this afternoon whether the fixing of maximum prices was bluff? The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is not here now, although he was present at the beginning


of the debate. I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman intends to fix any maximum prices of food. He has not got the machinery to enforce them, if he had the intention. I do not mind a bit of personal publicity about the Minister's walkabout around the markets, as though he is the first Minister to use his legs at six o'clock in the morning. As far as I am concerned, he can stay in bed all day. If he signed the Orders he need never go to the markets. But right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will find that no single price Order is made. The whole thing is nothing but gigantic bluff. They will allow prices to go up. They will make no attempt to control them, because they cannot, and they have not the machinery with which to do it. There is no evidence so far, unless the Minister of State gives it to us, that they are trying to construct any of the machinery.
The next important point I should like to mention, which has been put from both sides of the House, concerns the troops. I notice that both the employers and the unions have said that they regard the putting of troops into the docks as something which should be the last resort, not the first. That is becoming more generally recognised now.
If it is true, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test says, that there are perishable goods lying in Southampton docks or elsewhere, I suggest that it is the Government's immediate responsibility to approach the Transport and General Workers' Union and ask whether it will give facilities for its members to move that perishable food. I understand that the Government have not so far done this. It may be that they will. We do not know the extent of the perishable goods. But if the Government will make the request, then at least they will have established afterwards, provided that it is not done in an offensive spirit, that they have endeavoured to get the unions, through its members, to move the perishable food. They may be astonished at the response that they will get. We would regard it as extremely premature if the Government were to attempt to put in troops to move perishable goods without first asking the union concerned whether it can assist in this particular matter.
I said that these are very severe powers to ask for, and I wish to refer to some of them. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) will be asking some searching questions about the Regulations in the next debate, but I should like to refer to one matter touched on by both sides of the House. We do not resist the taking of these powers, but we insist, and we believe that everyone in the House, on whatever side he sits, should insist, on full accountability for the use of them. As they are drawn, it is a very hit-and-miss business whether anybody knows if the powers have been used, and they are powers which we should not concede to the Government without full accountability. For example, by Regulation 32, a police constable will have power of arrest without a warrant. I hope that the Home Secretary will give guidance to chief constables about how such a power should be used if, in an extreme case, it is intended to use it.
If these extreme powers are used, there should be accounting to Parliament in the form of publicity about them. These severe powers include in Regulation 27 the billeting of seamen on private citizens. There is also the question of requisitioning chattels. It is theoretically possible—no, it is practically possible—for the Government to seize furniture for billeting purposes and to take motor cars. There is no limit to what they can do.
By Regulation 20 the Government can decide which farmers should get feeding-stuffs to feed their cattle. It is no use hon. Members opposite shaking their heads. These are the powers for which they are being asked to vote. I am not resisting them. What I am saying is that, even though the Government are not a Government of tyrants and may not want to use them, we do not know who may be delegated by them to use them.
I make a simple and reasonable request. The Government should keep a firm hold on every Minister who has these powers. He should be required to account to Parliament by some form of publicity for any power which is used and how it is used in an individual case. That can be done by reporting to the House if it is sitting. If it is not sitting,


it can be done through the London Gazette. I see no reason why the House should yield up rights and traditions which it regards as the essence of a free country without saying to the Executive that they must account by means of publicity, and without having to have it dragged out of them, for the manner and circumstances in which each individual power is used. If hon. Members opposite were sitting on this side of the House, I could well imagine the chorus of applause which would greet any such statement. They have a chance to make sure that the Government make it.
We do not object to the taking of these powers. We believe that it would be premature at this stage to use the power which is most in Members' minds, namely, the power to call in the troops. The union's ability to do the job has not been exhausted. We shall regard as a test case for future industrial relations the way in which the Government continue to handle this issue once they have received the Pearson Report. We strongly urge them to make up their minds on the report when they have received it and to get the two parties together and conciliate between them in accordance with whatever conclusions they reach. To find a way out of this dispute is more important than to give the Government these powers, and it is to this end that we shall be directing our minds in the days ahead.

9.40 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Richard Sharples): I think that those who have sat through the debate would agree that it has been a responsible one, and that there has been a wish on both sides to keep the temperature down and to find a solution to the problem, if possible.
The House has benefited from the very thoughtful maiden speech of the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. John D. Grant). We know that he comes to the House with a long experience of these matters. He would not expect me to say that I wholly agree with every word he said, but I am sure that we will find his experience in matters of this kind most useful when we discuss the wide issues that arise in the whole field of industrial relations during this Parliament.
It was made clear by my right hon. Friend in opening the debate that these Regulations are, broadly speaking, in the same form as those introduced at the time of the seamen's strike in 1966. We made it clear that they are essentially precautionary and that the Government have no intention of making use of them unless and until the needs of the situation compel us to do so, and then only to the extent necessary. But, as the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said, any Government placed in the situation in which we are at the moment would have had to take these precautionary measures.
The debate was opened for the Opposition by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). She apologised for the fact that she would have to leave early for another engagement. The House accepts the reason why she had to be away. She said, "We have not commented on the merits of the union's claim and we do not intend to do so." With certain exceptions that has been the line taken by hon. Members generally, and absolutely rightly. The House has not wished or thought it appropriate in this debate to go into details of the claim and the dispute that is taking place.
Many questions have been asked, not least by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, about the work of the court of inquiry and the timetable that it would follow. It might be helpful to the House if I placed on record—since this has not been done before, because the court of inquiry was appointed only on Friday evening—the terms of reference of the court of inquiry. They are:
To inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute between the parties represented on the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry arising from the claim of the Workpeople's side for an increase in the national basic minimum time rate, and their rejection of the Employers' offer, having regard to all the relevant factors, including the present pay structure and negotiations for its reform, and to report.
The members of the court of inquiry are Lord Pearson, who was the chairman of the court of inquiry that investigated the seamen's dispute; Mr. Grint, who was until 1969 the independent chairman of the National Dock Labour Board; Mr. Will Paynter, a member of the Commission on Industrial Relations


and previously General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers, and Mr. Fielding, past President of the Engineering Employers' Federation.
I want to say a word or two about the timing of the report and when we can expect some results from the court of inquiry. In announcing its setting up, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Employment and Productivity used these words:
I shall appoint it with maximum speed and, of course, I shall make clear, though I do doubt whether that will be necessary, to the Court of Inquiry the urgency with which investigations must be carried out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1970; Vol. 803, c. 1729.]
The preliminary meeting of the court of inquiry took place this afternoon, and formal hearings will start tomorrow, Tuesday morning. The procedure which the court will adopt is, of course, a matter for the court itself to decide, but we are fortunate in that Lord Pearson is a most experienced person in these matters. It seems likely, from what we know at the moment, and considering the precedents in cases of this kind, that the hearings will take two or three days.
I am sure the House recognises that this is not a simple issue, and that it involves a study by the inquiry—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Did I understand the Minister to say that the formal proceedings would start tomorrow? The court was appointed on Friday. May I ask what happened on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, and today? If the matter is so urgent, and we are now to have these Regulations, why do we have to wait until Tuesday before the court starts its work?

Mr. Sharples: The preliminary hearing took place today. The hon. Gentleman probably did not hear what I said. This is a complex matter, because the court has to take into account the background of the second stage of the Devlin negotiations, and also the reform of the present pay structure. It is a matter of getting a balance between those two which the court has to consider. The inquiry will need adequate time—there is no doubt about that—to consider these issues and to prepare and publish its report. This will obviously take a few days longer, and from the information

that I have at the moment I think it unlikely that we shall have the court's report before the House rises for the Summer Recess. If one looks back to the nearest parallel case, which was the 1966 seamen's dispute, one sees that it took eight days from the time of the preliminary hearing to the publication of the report, and I think that is the best timetable that we can hope for, although the court has been impressed with the need for urgency.
It was suggested by a number of hon. Gentlemen opposite that talks should continue in parallel with the work of the Court of Inquiry. I think that there are serious difficulties about that. First, I think every one of us believes in the urgency of the inquiry, and that nothing should be done which would in any way interfere with the urgency of getting a result from it. The parties concerned in the dispute will be giving evidence during the period, and will either be in attendance at the court, or else will need to be available constantly to give evidence. I believe it will hold up the court if the parties were to be involved in parallel negotiations at the same time. Once the court has completed its hearings, then both sides will want to consider its findings.
I come, now, to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, about what would happen once the findings of the court were known. Then would be the time for renewed negotiations between the parties, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would offer to intervene at that time if that would assist the negotiations. I am sure that that would be the right time for him to offer to intervene again.

Mr. Callaghan: Would the right hon. Gentleman expand on his use of the phrase "to intervene"? Does it mean that the Government will take a view of the Pearson Report and will say to the parties, "This is our conclusion on it and this will be the starting point", or will they allow the parties to just sit there and argue about the report?

Mr. Sharples: It is impossible for me to answer that question in advance of the findings of the court of inquiry. The right hon. Gentleman has raised an entirely hypothetical situation. Let us


first get the findings of the court, and then it will be for my right hon. Friend to decide how best he can assist the two parties in coming together and reaching a solution. It would be quite wrong of me tonight to try to anticipate a purely hypothetical situation.

Mr. Callaghan: The Leader of the House will be asking us to recess shortly. We will not be satisfied to do that until we know how the Government intend to handle this report. The right hon. Gentleman may not be able to answer my question tonight, but we must have an answer if we are to allow the House to rise. We must know what the Government's attitude is, not on the merits but on the procedure of handling it because, if they say that they will not make up their minds about handling the issue until they have seen the report, then that really looks as if they are ready to be much too complacent about it.

Mr. Sharples: My right hon. Friend has made it clear time and again to the House throughout the discussions that he is available to try to help to reach a solution. I repeat that it would be absolutely wrong for me to try to say what the position will be, and how he might best be able to assist, in a purely hypothetical situation and in advance of the receipt of the report.
A number of hon. Members, particularly the right hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends who are most closely concerned with the ports and those who work in them have referred to the calm atmosphere which at present prevails inside the ports. I am sure that it is the wish of everybody that that atmosphere should continue for as long as possible.
I wish to make it clear that, in so far as the question of perishable goods is concerned, we would wish to consult the unions before taking any steps to move these goods. This is the principle which we have followed and which we intend to continue to follow. I hope that the unions will agree, particularly in the Port of London at the present time, to the movement of these perishable goods, and I hope that it will be possible for them to be moved with union labour. It is, however, quite essential that these goods are moved.
On the other hand, let us be clear that there remains on the Government a clear

obligation to maintain supplies of food and essential commodities and to use the powers available to them to do so. It is also an obligation on the Government to protect the housewife, in so far as this is possible, against rises in prices.
I appreciate the difficulties involved in this, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is keeping very closely in touch with the situation. Let us also be plain about this: if it became necessary, in this connection, to use the powers which we have, then we would not hesitate to do so, although the situation has not arisen yet. I very much hope that that situation will not arise but, should it become essential to do so, then it would be necessary for us to take action at the retail point.
The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn said that the emergency powers did not solve anything. She was absolutely right. The dispute and the problem will not be solved by the emergency powers, but they are an essential precaution. She went on to say, and I agree, that clarification of an issue will often bring a solution. I think that that is where our best hopes for a solution lie. We all know that in the end the dispute will be solved in one way or another around the negotiating table.
The efforts of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to find a solution will be untiring. No one should underestimate, and no one who has spoken today has under-estimated, the seriousness of the situation if a national dock strike were to continue for any time. We all know what would be the effect on prices, essential supplies and full employment throughout the country. The cost to the country if the dispute where to continue would be very heavy, and this is something which all parties to the dispute must recognise. We all hope for an early end to it and we all wish my right hon. all success in his efforts to find a solution through setting up a court of inquiry.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the urgent need and the Government's intention to control prices if need be. What steps is he taking to create the apparatus to ensure the control of prices if the need arises?

Mr. Sharples: The powers are contained in the Emergency Regulations and the Government will use them if that becomes necessary. Full publicity for these powers would probably be the best weapon in the Government's armoury.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman explain his answer a little more precisely? I appreciate that the Government are taking powers, but that is not what I asked. I asked what steps they were taking to create the apparatus to enforce the powers. Perhaps he will deal with that question in a little more detail.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House that Her Majesty deems is proper by Proclamation, made in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act 1920, as amended by the Emergency Powers Act 1964, and dated 16th July 1970, to declare that a state of emergency exists.

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of Her Majesty's Household.

EMERGENCY POWERS (REGULATIONS)

10 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Peter Rawlinson): I beg to move,
That the Regulations made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act 1920 by Order dated 16th July, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th July, shall continue in force, subject however to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the said Act.
The House, having approved the Proclamation, now turns to the Regulations although during the past several hours, as you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. Members will be aware, we have been dealing with these Regulations, They spring, as the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) said in her speech this afternoon, inevitably from the emergency and the Emergency Powers Act—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult to address the House against a background of noise. This is Part 2 of an important debate. Sir Peter Rawlinson.

The Attorney-General: I was saying that these regulations spring inevitably, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn said, from the emergency and the Emergency Power Act, which provides for the protection of the community in cases of emergency.
I have been told by right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) has questions to pose concerning these Regulations. There is no doubt that these powers are extensive and comprehensive. It would indeed be a poor House of Commons which did not look closely at such powers as are being given to the Executive as the requirements are to secure the essentials of life of the community. That is the very purpose of the Act. It necessarily involves the assumption of powers to a wide extent, but once there is an emergency, necessarily extraordinary powers are needed.
I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) dislike of these powers. I do not believe any hon. Member would like or does

like them. They would not be here as hon. Members if they did like them. The powers could not be liked by a lawyer trained in and inheriting English Common Law but, certainly, the emergency powers are very essential. A duty arising from the Act is imposed on the Government to take these necessary powers. As the House probably knows, they are to last for one calendar month. They are dated 16th July, which is the date of the Proclamation, although they were made on 17th July. Therefore, before 16th August, which happens to be a Sunday, there has to be a second Proclamation if they are to continue. Therefore, any holiday which any hon. or right hon. Member has, he must appreciate, is at very considerable risk.
These powers, which are very wide and extensive, are precautionary powers. I emphasise that. They are precautionary powers which must be, and will be, used with discretion and care. Many in this House will be conversant with the powers set out in the Regulations. Any hon. Member who was in the last Parliament will know them only too well because they were before this House only four years ago when they were presented by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), assisted, of course, by the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South. They were comprehensive Regulations. I must make quite clear the debt which I and others owe to the right hon. Gentleman for the form of the Regulations which are before the House on this occasion. With exceptions, I shall show that they are only very slightly different from the Regulations which were presented and approved in the last Parliament.
As hon. Members will see, the Regulations are divided into groups for the ports, vehicles, public services, consumption and distribution—which deal with fuel and food—transport services, possession of chattels and land, billeting and offences.
I will deal briefly with the Regulation concerned with ports, Regulation No. 1. This is to ensure the best use of the ports and to avoid congestion in the ports. The Minister of Transport can give directions to a port authority "or any other person". I make clear to the House that


in that context of the use of those words "or any other person" is a person with controlling or managerial functions. This does not provide for industrial conscription, which is particularly and expressly prevented by Section 1(1) of the 1920 Act.
Regulation 1(4) empowers the Minister of Transport to appoint port emergency committees and various committees and persons designated by them. Under Regulation 2, which is a new one, if a direction is not complied with—that is, if there is a failure or a refusal, for instance to move a vehicle or a ship—the Minister can take such steps as he considers appropriate, and, if in default, the person who refuses to move a ship, for instance, must pay the reasonable charges, quite apart from committing an offence.
Regulation 3 enables the Minister to allow employers other than those licensed and employees other than those registered to be employed in the docks.
Therefore, the new elements in these Regulations are as follows. First, there is Regulation 2, which enables persons who are in default to be dealt with. Regulation 12, which provides for a relaxation of regulations concerning the conveyance by road of petroleum-spirit and certain other dangerous substances, is also a new Regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) referred to this. The reason for this Regulation is that there may not be a sufficient number of vehicles of particular specification and design which can deal with the carriage of petroleum and it may be necessary to use other vehicles.
Regulation 22, which is the third of the new Regulations, enables directions to be given to public service vehicle operators as to passengers to be carried or road services to be provided; for instance, if coaches could not be hired or compelled, they could be requisitioned.
Regulation 24 is basically the same as it was in the 1966 Regulations but now includes passengers, whereas formerly it dealt only with goods.
Regulation 19 has been referred to [Interruption.] This confers the power to regulate the maximum price of food by means of an Order. No one pretends—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are too many sustained dialogues going on in the Chamber. If hon. Members wish to carry on a long conversation, it would be fairer to do it outside the Chamber.

The Attorney-General: I was dealing with Regulation 19, Mr. Speaker. This Regulation empowers the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to regulate the maximum price of food by means of an Order. A similar power was conferred in 1966 by Regulation 18. It was then thought essential to have this power. No one pretends that it would be easy to administer in the comprehensive way that, for instance, food rationing or such matters of control were effected during the war. However, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State said in the previous debate, a declaration by Order of the fixing of a price would, indeed, have an effect. People who disregarded it would have to accept the consequences of a breach of the Regulation.

Mr. Charles Loughlin: I do not dispute that a Government announcement might inhibit some people from increasing prices, but there have been indications that increased prices have applied at Smithfield Market and Covent Garden Market in the last day or two. As I pointed out earlier, there is no real point in taking powers unless there is some machinery by which those powers can be enforced. A Statutory Instrument is a very long-term thing and not a short-term thing.

The Attorney-General: Nevertheless, it is a power, and it is a power which can be used and which should be used. It was thought advisable to have it in 1966, and it is now thought advisable that this power should be given to the Minister. This is something which arises directly from the emergency—the denial of supplies owing to the strike which creates the scarcity and, therefore, the possibility that people will increase, or attempt to increase, prices to get a better return on a scarce commodity.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: All the other Regulations, apart from this one, not only give the powers but provide for the manner in which they should be exercised. This Regulation merely gives the power and leaves the manner in which it should be exercised entirely to the Minister. Why?

The Attorney-General: The power of the Minister is, and can only be, to make the Statutory Instrument, to set out what the price shall be and to determine that people comply with it. I have not pretended, and nobody pretended in 1966, that this would be as effective as some of the other powers given in the Regulations. I make that clear. I do not know how useful it is to make it clear or for the House to go into the matter in detail. We propose that the Minister should take and exercise the power by Statutory Instrument.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to the question of trespass and pickets. He said that we had emergency powers in 1926 and 1966. He forgot 1949, when neither he nor I was a Member, but I think that the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) was a Member. A power similar to the one which we propose was used in the unofficial dock strike of 1949. Regulation 29(2) applies in respect of anything prejudicial to public safety. With regard to Regulation 29(1), the proviso to Regulation 34(1) says that no person shall be guilty of any offence if he is taking part in, or persuading any persons to take part in, a strike. The picketing which the hon. Gentleman had in mind would not be an offence under the Regulation and certainly would not be prejudicial to public safety. If someone takes part in, or persuades any person to take part in, a strike, it is not an offence.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Surely the phrase "peacefully persuading" is a matter of interpetation. Suppose a number of pickets picketed lorry drivers going into a dock. That could be interpreted as not peaceful picketing. It could be dealt with under Regulation 29. The Regulation is wide open.

The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman is over-pessimistic. The proviso refers to
peacefully persuading any other person or persons to take part in, a strike".
The normal, legal form of picketing would be a question of peacefully persuading people, and it would not be an offence. The proviso to Regulation 34(1), as with all the Regulations and the Act, is designed so that there shall

be no industrial conscription and no criminal offence arising from taking part in a strike. The Regulation is designed to deal with the mischief of someone loitering and trespassing in such a way as to be prejudicial to public safety and is not concerned with lawful pursuits such as peacefully persuading a person to take part in a strike.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: We appreciate the Attorney-General's courtesy in giving way. Could not both the point on loitering and the point on striking—and, indeed, the whole of these Regulations—be very dangerous in view of Regulation 32:
Where a constable, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence against any of these Regulations has been committed, he may arrest without warrant anyone whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence.
Therefore, a constable—not a sergeant, not a police inspector but an ordinary constable—can arrest anyone at any time, provided that he has suspicion that any of the Regulations are being broken.

The Attorney-General: The reference to a constable refers not so much to rank as to position; even an officer of superior rank is a constable for this purpose. The hon. Member, however, is quite right to point out these matters. A constable is here given the power to arrest
without warrant … with reasonable cause".
It is extensive. I opened what I had to say to the House by saying that it is right always to look at such Regulations. It would be unworthy of the House of Commons if it did not do so.
Certainly, this is giving an extended power to arrest without warrant. Nevertheless, it has to be "with reasonable cause". The constable must have his reasonable cause to suspect, and then he can arrest. In the same way, he has to know—and he will know—that it is not an offence for anybody to take part in, or peacefully persuade any other person or persons to take part in, a strike.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East called these powers that we are taking tyrannical, and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North said that nobody likes them. Of course, nobody likes them—they give increased and extensive powers—but, as I have


said, an emergency calls for emergency measures.
Regulations 28 to 31 are the four which create new criminal offences. The 27 others are really provisions enabling Ministers to take executive action, and they are all identical to those of 1966. Nothing, I repeat, makes it an offence to take part in a strike.

Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann: rose—

The Attorney-General: The maximum penalties for offences against the Regulations—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If an hon. Member wishes to intervene, it is not sufficient to stand. He must ask the hon. Member who has the Floor whether he may intervene.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I was seeking, Mr. Speaker, to catch the Attorney-General's eye.

The Attorney-General: I will certainly give way to the hon. Member. I did not notice his rising.

Mr. Douglas-Mann: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way. What concerns me about Regulation 34 is the word "only"—
that a person shall not be guilty of an offence against any of these Regulations by reason only of his taking part in …".
I appreciate that that is a substantial safeguard, but the law of conspiracy could be invoked in these circumstances. I should welcome an assurance from the Attorney-General that the law of conspiracy is not likely to be invoked, in circumstances which are likely to arise in the course of a strike, to create an offence for something which would not be an offence having regard to that proviso but which could become an offence by reason of the law of conspiracy.

The Attorney-General: I certainly assure the hon. Member that no member of the Government would play any part towards creating any offence by way of an agreement—which is conspiracy, as it were—to join together peacefully to persuade another person or persons to take part in a strike. They are entitled so to do; that is the law of the country, and that has not altered. A conspiracy to commit an unlawful act is another

matter and would be dealt with by the criminal law outside the Regulations.
I was dealing with the maximum penalties. On summary conviction, for an offence against the Regulations, they are three months imprisonment or £100, and, of course, the suspended sentence would apply, but the criminal law applies to any offence which is committed and which is outside these Regulations, but which is in itself a criminal offence.
Generally, therefore, these Regulations provide powers for Ministers to do a wide range of executive acts, and they are executive acts to execute the purpose of the Proclamation. The duty of Ministers in the circumstances of an emergency is to safeguard the life of the community, and this, as hon. Members have found in other circumstances in other years, is essential to the life of the community. The purpose of these Regulations is the safeguarding of the life of the community, and it is in those circumstances that I ask the House to approve.

10.21 p.m.

Sir Elwyn Jones: The importance of scrutinising with anxious care the need for the undoubtedly draconian powers which the Regulations we are debating confer on Ministers has been stressed, very rightly, on both sides of the House. The Regulations themselves and their use are justifiable only if they are really necessary as a means of maintaining the essentials of life of the community at large. Any user of these Regulations for any lesser or different purpose would be quite unjustifiable, and we shall be watching carefully, when the powers under the Regulations are exercised, if they are exercised, that this fundamental principle is maintained.
The second point I wish to emphasise is that the right to strike is, of course, a legal right, and nothing in these Regulations should be construed as infringing that right. Indeed, the proviso to Section 2 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, states expressly that taking part
in a strike, or peacefully to persuade any other person … to take part in a strike
is perfectly lawful. We gave anxious thought to this aspect of the problem in 1966, and saw to it that the safeguard was provided also in the proviso to Regulation 34 of the Regulations.
However, there are a number of questions which I should like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the Government's understanding of some of these Regulations and their intentions with regard to some of them. I am glad that at an early stage he disposed of the anxiety which arose from the terms of Regulation 1, which gives powers to the Minister of Transport to give directions to a
port authority or any other person
as to a number of matters, including the loading and unloading of ships. Some have fears that this would empower a port authority, acting under the Minister's directions, to order a docker to load or unload a ship. If that were right, that would be a flagrant act of strike breaking. In the debate in 1966 I expressed the view that that was a wrong construction, and I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has confirmed that view tonight. If a direction were given to a docker on strike he would be entitled to reject it, and if he did so, he would not be committing an offence, under the Regulations.
Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would give a similar assurance as to Regulation 2 and confirm that it does not give the Minister of Transport power to require dockers to perform any particular task. Will he generally make it clear that the Regulations are not directed against those on strike or the unions to which they belong?
Before I come to questions about the potential exercise of these powers, there are one or two other Regulations to which I do not think the right hon. and learned Gentleman has referred about which I should like to ask one or two questions.
First, in the section of the Regulations dealing with the relaxation of restrictions as to use of road vehicles, Regulation 4 deals with goods vehicle licences. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that that Regulation does not waive the requirements of the Road Traffic Acts about the hours of driving for drivers of goods and passenger vehicles, nor the requirements to keep records of drivers' hours of work? Will he give an assurance that these requirements will continue in force?
Regulation 7, on the face of it, looks pretty alarming, in that it permits the Minister of Transport to authorise the use of road vehicles which do not comply with the Construction and Use Regulations made under the Road Traffic Acts. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman indicate the restrictions contemplated if that power is exercised. I hope he does not contemplate that a lot of junk and dangerous vehicles will, under the excuse of emergency, be put upon the road.
As to Regulation 11, dealing with third-party insurance, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that, although that Regulation allows the Minister of Transport to waive some of the formalities connected with third-party insurance, it will not waive the necessity for third-party insurance itself. I notice, in passing, that the old Regulation 12 gave the Postmaster-General certain powers with regard to postal and telegraphic services. What has happened about that? I am not advocating any extension of regulation, but it would be interesting to see what has filled that void.
In regard to the potential use of these powers, obviously any use of them will have to be watched most anxiously. As has been said more than once in this debate, very much is at stake in this serious strike situation for all who are concerned—the dockers, the employers and, above all, the community at large. There is a great deal of tinder lying about, and inflammatory situations can easily occur or be created. As was said most eloquently at the beginning of the debate, at the end of the day the strike can be settled only by discussion and negotiation round the table. It will not be settled by threats or any show of force or intimidation, and the exercise of restraint is obviously vital.
It is for this reason that, very properly, a number of hon. and right hon. Members have raised anxious questions about the penal powers which are contained in the Regulations. It gave me great anxiety in 1966 to be a party to introducing them in that emergency situation. The House has noted the assurance of the Attorney-General that no action will be taken under the powers to restrict peaceful picketing. We shall keep a watchful eye to ensure that that assurance is fulfilled in the act.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) asked some searching questions about the provisions of Regulation 29(2). That is a hardy perennial which has been in the Regulations since 1926. I confess that my conscience does not feel particularly happy that it appeared in the 1966 Regulations, but at least I take comfort from the fact that I am not aware that the rule of evidence referred to in that Regulation has ever been used. I suspect that it is unlikely that it would be used. The circumstances of its user are, at any rate, circumscribed in the Regulation, but it is obviously a power which will have to be carefully watched in practice.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) asked some questions about Regulation 32, and I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman to respond to my right hon. Friend's request that the Home Office should give clear guidance to the police that the use of this power of arrest without warrant can conceivably be justified only in the most exceptional circumstances.

Mr. John Mendelson: My right hon. and learned Friend has said several times that these powers and their possible application will have to be carefully watched. As the House will not be sitting, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend from where he will be watching?

Sir Elwyn Jones: This is one of the problems to which I shall be referring in a moment on the subject of the accountability of the Government to Parliament for what is going to be done. I am afraid that it rather looks as if once again a considerable burden will fall upon the Press as the watchdogs of the exercise of these powers. However, I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to give some indication to the House of some machinery for reporting progress, so to speak, if these powers are used, and the manner in which they are used.
This crisis strikes us, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has reminded us, at a time when Parliament will be going into recess and when the probing process of Parliamentary Questions will not be available to us. I agree with my hon. Friend

that we are confronted with a real problem, of the solution of which we have had no indication at all from the Government as yet. For instance, what is proposed about the publicity for the orders that may be issued if these powers are to be exercised? Are they to be published in the Gazette? Is there to be some particular machinery of publication so that the public, the Press and Parliament may know? May we have some light on this matter?
One of the difficulties for the House is that, as I see it, very few, if any, of the Orders which Ministers are empowered to make under these Regulations need any parliamentary sanction at all. I noted with some interest when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was dealing with Regulation 19 that he appeared to think that before the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could make an Order for fixing maximum prices a Statutory Instrument would be necessary.
However, before I come to that precise point, which is of some importance, I should like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, when he winds up the debate, to deal with the real concern that we have as to how the House, the public and the Press are to be informed about how these powers are to be used, if they are used, so that there is proper accounting for the exercise of these draconian powers.
I now turn to Regulation 19, and I must confess that the House has been given no satisfaction whatever on what the Government have in mind with regard to the control of food and foodstuff prices. There is undoubtedly mounting evidence that some such control and regulation is necessary. The Daily Mail reported on Friday on the meat situation that
markets throughout the country report sharp increases in wholesale prices.
I ask the Attorney-General whether that is right.
What is being done about what I see described in tonight's Evening Standard as the "Orange and apple racket"? There is a most interesting account there which reads as follows:
The 'oranges and apples scandal" broke as Agriculture Minister. Mr. James Prior, was on a walk-about at Covent Garden. One retailer complained that South African apples


had jumped 16s. for a 40 1b. box—an increase of 6d. a pound to the housewife. After his tour, Mr. Prior gave this advice to the High Street shoppers: 'Shop around … perhaps keep off oranges, apples, grapes and bananas for a few days.'
"Why not give up food altogether", he might have said. Then the alternatives were quoted—melons, cherries, plums and pears. It was not quite as bad as Marie Antoinette telling the people to eat cake, but it does not look very much like a dynamic policy for restricting price inflation.
We know that the Prime Minister says he relies on competition to control prices in the private sector. Is that the philosophy which is to apply to this situation? It is obvious that competition in the private sector is already causing anxiety to the housewife in her purchases.

The Attorney-General: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman assist me and the House by saying how he contemplated control of prices in 1966?

Sir Elwyn Jones: Happily, there was no evidence at that time of racketeers making corners in food, as there appears to be some evidence today. Whatever plans and arrangements the Labour Administration had, I ask the Attorney-General and his colleagues, who for a short time have the burden of government cast upon them, to say what they are doing about this matter.
First, what machinery have they available for reporting price increases in the first instance, because unless they know what is going on they cannot say whether or not action needs to be taken? Obviously, a casual walk-about is an inadequate method of informing the Government. May we be told what enforcement machinery is necessary? What will be the sanctions? If food supplies run short, have the Government plans to control supplies and distribution of foodstuffs?
I come back to a critical question, in the light of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said in opening this part of the debate. He contemplates that the Minister of Agriculture's Order will be brought in by way of a Statutory Instrument. When will it be laid? If it is to be effective, it will have to be laid before the House rises for the Summer Recess. Is it to be an Order that will

require the affirmative approval of the House, or will it be by way of an Order that can merely be prayed against?
These are important questions. I pose them because, as at present advised, the House will be rising this week. It means that if no action is taken before then, this potential threat to the standard of living and the cost of living will proceed unabated.

Mr. Loughlin: In case I do not succeed in catching Mr. Speaker's eye, I wonder whether my right hon. and learned Friend would deal with one point. In the case of a Statutory Instrument, I understand that some time must elapse in which it has to lie on the Table. There are 28 days. How can a Statutory Instrument be made?

Sir Elwyn Jones: It is on these matters that it is imperative that we have answers before the debate is concluded. Obviously, they are matters of great importance.
Finally, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the question which was put to me at a similar stage of the 1966 debate. Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an explicit assurance that if these Regulations are approved they will be revoked as soon as the strike ends? Obviously, they should not continue in force a day longer than strictly necessary.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A number of hon. Members wish to speak in a short debate. Brief speeches will help.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I have missed only one speech in today's proceedings, and I must report to those hon. Members who have not been here that this has been a truly remarkable business. It has become even more remarkable in the last 40 minutes, in the course of which we have listened to an exchange between two of the highest-paid lawyers in Britain—at least, they would be if they earned their livings elsewhere than in this place. Having listened to them, I cannot decide who is Alice and who is the looking glass.
The Attorney-General sought advice from his sparring partner since my right hon. and learned Friend from Wales is


the author of these Regulations, having designed them and written part of them. My right hon. and learned Friend then asked the Attorney-General what they meant. If my right hon. and learned Friend does not know what they mean, what chance have we?

Sir Elwyn Jones: I was asking the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he thinks they mean what I think they mean.

Mr. Atkinson: I can understand my right hon. and learned Friend's confusion. They describe each other as "learned", and they go on with this charade.
What really has happened is that the Attorney-General has taken from the appropriate pigeon hole all the notes left by the retiring Government. All the interpretations are there. But that is not enough. We have to spend 40 minutes listening to two of the highest-paid lawyers in the land trying to advise each other what the Regulations are all about and how they will be used.
I accept that a number of hon. Members want to speak, and I will make only three brief points. First, we should explain why we shall divide shortly on the Question. We argue that we on this side look forward to a satisfactory settlement of this dispute, and not to satisfactory Regulations. Because of that, the Regulations are secondary to the settlement of the dispute, and we have argued that consistently.
The second point is that the powers cannot be separated. No matter how many learned Gentlemen we have to advise us, they cannot tell us how to separate the powers. We have to take them in tow. If we do not like some of them, the only course of action available to us is to vote against the lot. We cannot discriminate between them.
My right hon. and learned Friend from Wales says that these are important matters, and we must look at them—

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Is my hon. Friend aware that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones), though originally from Wales, is in fact a London Member and, I understand, a dockers' Member?

Sir Elwyn Jones: That is quite right.

Mr. Atkinson: I apologise if my right hon. and learned Friend is not from Wales—

Sir Elwyn Jones: I entirely repudiate that I am not from Wales. I come from Llanelli, and I am proud of it.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful for that clarification. As has been pointed out, it is the only clarification that we will get tonight.
We cannot separate the Regulations. Therefore, we must vote against the whole of them as they stand, and that certainly is the intention of many of my hon. Friends.
Another point which has run through the debate—it has been a curiously lethargic debate throughout—is that the Government are seeking powers for only the seventh time in 50 years. This is a historic occasion. But one would imagine, from the kind of chatting up that goes on in these curious down key, woolly almost conversational, speeches to which we have listened—excluding one or two of my hon. Friends—that we are doing this kind of thing seven times a week.
The point is that many hon. Gentlemen—in fact, all bar one—who have participated in the debate tonight have explained that the Government require these powers so that Ministers can watch the situation. Every one has said that the Ministers are proficient to do this. In other words, these are powers to enable the Government to become spectators; they are spectators' regulations. All hon. Members opposite have emphasised that they want the Government to stand on the touch lines to watch what is going on. In other words, it is a spectators' charter. It is certainly not the dockers' charter, to which reference was made earlier.
Another point about the spectators concerns how these Regulations will apply. I should like to refer to Regulations 19 and 32, and I will lump them together, as the Attorney-General did when he referred to them. Those two regulations go together.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: And Regulation 34.

Mr. Atkinson: I am taking Regulations 32 and 19 together, excluding comments about Regulation 34 for the moment.
Regulation 19 deals with the control of food prices. Irrespective of visits to Covent Garden—incidentally it was not clear from the Minister's remarks which Covent Garden he visited—the situation now facing the Government concerning the Regulations is that if they are serious about their intention to prevent profiteering throughout the country they must do something with the Regulations which they now have. In other words, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food must tell the country that if oranges go up another 2d. the price will be regulated at whatever figure he fixes, and if butchers increase the price of meat by, say, a shilling a pound the price of meat will be regulated. So if fruiterers put up the price of oranges by 2d. or butchers put up the price of meat by a shilling, they are contravening the Regulations if the Minister decides that that is profiteering.
If we link Regulation 32 with that, it means that every police officer in the country will be alerted to watch the butchers and the fruiterers to see whether their prices exceed those laid down by the Minister. That is what the Regulations say. Therefore, we must have a bobby stationed outside each greengrocer's and each butcher's shop watching what he does regarding prices.
According to Regulation 32—let us have a ship's lawyer attempting to advise the Attorney-General on this matter—the police will be obliged to arrest the greengrocer or the butcher if he exceeds the price laid down by the Minister. The Regulation says that the greengrocer or the butcher may be arrested on suspicion, etc., because the evidence is there for all to see. The Minister of Agriculture will lay down the prices, and the police will be there to carry out his instructions to see that prices do not rise above the levels set by him. That is the situation. This is a pretty good Regulation. It would be a good thing if we could get the police on to the side of the housewife. We would all be laughing. But the Government have no intention of doing that.
The first instruction issued by the Home Secretary to the police will be that they are not to worry too much about what his colleague the Minister of Agriculture says. The Home Secretary will have to explain to the police that this is a question not of law but of

psychology. We shall tell the greengrocer and butcher that they must not lark about with prices, but at the same time the police will be told that they must not enforce the Regulations passed by the House. That is the position, and that is the instruction which the Home Secretary will issue. He will tell the police to ignore the instructions given to the country by the Minister of Agriculture.
The other Regulation on which I wish to comment is that concerning the use of troops. What concerns us in all industrial relations, and particularly in the docks, is the position which will arise when military personnel meet civilians. This is where controversy is likely to arise. This is where the dispute will spread. This is where all the irritants will come into the dispute. The Government can move troops in to unload cargoes, but those cargoes have then to be loaded on to some sort of vehicle to be moved further afield, either by road or rail. It is at that point that the military lads will meet civilians, and that is where the dispute will arise. Our argument is that the Regulation which gives the Government power to use troops will make the dispute worse and might even prolong it. Military and civilian personnel will have to meet to carry out what is, after all, an extremely complex operation. In our view this Regulation permitting the use of troops will worsen the situation, and that is why we shall vote against it.
I made the point earlier about the employers refusing to negotiate, and our objection is to the Government's taking powers of this kind while that situation exists. I am thinking particularly of Regulation 29.
Whatever has been said about Alice Through the Looking Glass, one thing that has emerged from today's debate is that the Government's view is that if there is a national dock dispute, an official strike it the docks, there must, of necessity, be emergency powers of this kind. The Government are saying that there are no particular reasons for taking these powers, but they are further saying—and this has been supported by Front Bench spokesmen on this side of the House—that if there is a dock strike it must of necessity give rise to an emergency situation.
It means that we are saying to the T.U.C. that if from now on there is a


dispute at the docks, or anywhere else, emergency powers will be taken to deal with it, and, therefore, from now on the two things go together. If there is any sort of dispute involving the docks or shipping, the Government of the day will automatically bring the emergency powers into being. That is what we are saying and that is what the Government are saying—that one thing follows the other. We have reached a milestone in industrial relations—certainly in docks and shipping—in that now, whenever disputes of this kind arise, emergency powers will immediately be brought in. That is the point that we have to learn from this non-debate and idiotic argument that has gone on for so much of the day.

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) that the position is worse than he has stated. This is not only a non-debate; in effect, there is collusion between the two Front Benches. What now happens, apparently, is that when a new Government come in they use, in support of their claim, the argument that the previous Government did the same thing before. My hon Friend is quite right, but he should have explained that the Regulations were not only drawn up by my right hon. Friend; they were written by the same people in the same office, and no doubt the same pens were used. My hon. Friend is also right in saying that when we examine the Regulations we find that many things contained therein have nothing to do with the docks dispute.
May we be told why, because there is a docks dispute, we are to allow on the road—at least, the Regulations permit this—road vehicles which are, in effect, both unlicensed and in an unsatisfactory state of repair, possibly with damaged tyres, and so on? Where are these vans and lorries? Why should they be allowed on the roads? As far as I know, at the moment no lorries are being kept off the roads. I am talking about lorries in perfect mechanical order. The dockers may be on strike, but the lorries are still there. If any lorries are to be used, I assume that they will be mechanically perfect. Why, therefore, should there be a relaxation in terms of the mechanical fitness of these vehicles?

Going through the Regulations we find a whole series of matters that have nothing to do with any dispute in the docks.
I intervened on the question of food prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham is right in saying that an Order could be brought in allowing 1s. on meat or 2d. a lb. on something else. Why cannot the Minister say today that he will introduce an Order under Regulation 19 providing that no food price must be higher than it was last Friday, and that if the price of any food in a retail shop is higher than it was last Friday, when the strike started, the persons concerned will be liable to the penalties mentioned in the Order?
Perhaps my hon. Friend was a little jocular when he quoted Regulation 32, but he is quite right; that Regulation would give any police constable power to arrest without warrant. Any housewife can tell a police constable "This price"—be it of meat, oranges or apples—"was so much last Friday and now it has gone up by 6d." There is no clear explanation of what the Minister will do about food prices. We are only told what he might do.
The other Regulations are clearly, and perhaps dangerously, defined. A person can be arrested for trespassing, loitering and a host of other things. A police constable need only have "reasonable cause". He will decide if an offence has been committed and, without warrant, he can arrest a person if he has reasonable cause to suspect him of being guilty of an offence.
What will happen to all these people who might be arrested? Will they be in custody without trial, and, if so, for how long? [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman for Down, South (Captain Orr) is being funny, but I thought I heard him say "Twenty years". Perhaps he was being facetious, or perhaps this sort of thing happens in Northern Ireland.
At present the lawyers work so slowly that people are kept under arrest for up to six months without trial. Indeed, some trials take two or three years to come on, after which people are sometimes found not guilty. Now people can be arrested on the suspicion of a police constable and kept under arrest without trial.

Captain L. P. S. Orr: indicated dissent.

Mr. Lewis: This is happening now, without these Regulations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman, coming from Northern Ireland, perhaps supports this sort of thing; he and his party. We have never supported Regulations of this type. [Interruption.] I suppose the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) has just returned from one of his calling places and finds this an amusing matter. [Laughter.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite find this amusing. We are debating an extremely serious matter, and it is unfortunate that not one of the hon. Gentlemen now occupying the back benches opposite was present for the earlier debate.

Mr. John Page: Oh.

Mr. Lewis: With the exception, that is, of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page), whom I recollect seeing in his place earlier.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: Mr. T. L. Iremonger (Ilford, North) rose—

Mr. Lewis: Am I doing the hon. Gentleman an injustice?

Mr. Iremonger: Yes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recollects seeing me here, too.

Mr. Lewis: I would never consciously do the hon. Gentleman an injustice. Like me, he will be aware that there were only two hon. Gentlemen opposite present for the earlier debate out of his hon. Friends who now occupy the benches opposite. Apart from those two, all the others might as well leave and return to those places where they can imbibe while we debate this important subject. [Laughter.] This is no laughing matter. Hon. Members opposite have come in at the last moment and now laugh about what is a serious matter.
We have had no explanation from the Attorney-General or the ex-Attorney-General about Regulation 32. I do not know who wrote it. If hon. Members opposite had been here earlier, they would have heard that the new Attorney-General has put in some new things and that the old Attorney-General has left in some of the old, and I do not think that either knows which is old and which new.
To me, the Regulation means that if any of my hon. Friends or any of my trade union friends were on the dock and walking around, he could be arrested by a policeman on suspicion. Even if it were the Minister of Agriculture walking around the docks instead of Covent Garden, a policeman could say, "I think you are loitering with intent and acting suspiciously", and he could arrest him. He would not do so if it were the Minister of Agriculture, but he might do it if it were some of my hon. Friends. A policeman might excuse some of the Tories, but he would take serious action against any of my hon. Friends.
I cannot support these Regulations, and if, as I hope, my hon. Friends force the matter to a Division, I shall go into the Lobby against the Regulations.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: The Attorney-General said that these were wide and far-reaching powers which would be used with discretion. I should like to cite the instance of what happened to a constituent of mine when these powers were not used with discretion.
This constituent deals in meat and is an exporter of meat. After six months' negotiation, he secured an order on the Continent for braising beef, what we call cow beef, a commodity not welcomed by housewives in this country. He received an export permit from the Board of Trade on Friday and it was dated 17th July.
He prepared his shipment and put it on a lorry on Saturday morning to undertake the 300-mile journey to Dover. During Friday, the Board of Trade issued an order prohibiting the export of meat and poultry. Incidentally, the relevant Press hand-out reached the Library of the House of Commons only at 8.30 this evening, and then only after the Library had arranged for it and then only after a messenger had gone from the House to the Board of Trade to get the Press hand-out.
When he telephoned the Board of Trade, my constituent was told that a notice had been issued on the B.B.C. He is a busy man and he cannot listen to all radio programmes or read all the newspapers. On Sunday, at about 2 a.m.,


his lorry arrived at Dover to be loaded aboard a ship. My constituent was then told about the order which had come into effect at midnight on Saturday. Because of that, he was unable to make arrangements for the refrigeration of his cargo to deal with it adequately on Monday. Is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food prepared to buy this consignment of beef at the same price as that at which my constituent would have exported it had he been allowed to do so?
He is in a further difficult position because he has two other cargoes lined up, one for Tuesday and one for Thursday this week. The Minister has agreed to look into the facts of this case. I hope that my constituent will not suffer any loss as a result of the Order being introduced in this way. On the evidence, I think that my right hon. Friend will agree that my constituent had very little chance of complying with the Order, particularly when he received an export licence fom the Board of Trade dated 17th July and the Order was made on 16th July. He appreciates that it is now necessary to ban the export of meat and poultry from this country. Nevertheless, I hope that something can be done to ensure that he will not be worse off than if he had been able to execute the order, certainly in respect of the shipment he took to Dover on Sunday.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: I am not very much concerned about whose hand wrote what. I have no particular criticism of my right hon. and learned friend the Member for West Ham, South (Sir Elwyn Jones) as an author. I am concerned about the situation in which the House finds itself in being asked to pass these Regulations.
This is an unprecedented situation. As at present proposed by the Government, the House is to adjourn on 24th July. Therefore, there will be removed from the scene the watchful eyes of hon. Members on the Front and back benches and the representatives of those who work in the docks. That is a strong constitutional point. It is made all the more serious by the fact that there has been no adequate reply from the Government about their intentions in trying to bring the two sides together again.
An important function of the House of Commons, when there is a dispute of this seriousness and when by extraordinary Regulations many of the ordinary rights of the subject are temporarily abrogated, is that every day the House should be able to compare not only the application of these Regulations but the whole policy that lies behind them and the performance of the Government on the original issue. The House will be in no position to do so. So far there has been no serious consideration of this point by any Front Bench speaker.
We have had no indication yet, although several hon. Members, including myself, have invited the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity to intervene, whether the Government will now insist that the employers should move from their rigid position not to enter negotiations while the dockers continue to strike. No answer has been given to that question. If the House were sitting later than this week, the Government would be bombarded every day with questions as to their attitude on this, either by Private Notice Question or demands for a statement. There is no easy answer which any hon. Member can give in this situation. Are we to part with the power of the House to retain its influence over the Government by day-to-day questioning and to accept these Regulations as if they were nothing but the ordinary application of day-to-day law, which manifestly they are not?
My third point is equally serious. The Government have made no suggestion, not even for debate, whether it might not be advisable to postpone the adjournment date of the House. I know that in the debate on the Motion to approve the dates for a recess there is a good deal of badinage on both sides and hon. Members know that a date has been agreed upon; but surely this is an extraordinary situation. Regulations of this type are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) said, on an average asked for not more often than once in ten years.
We are told—this is the formula used time and again by the Leader of the House—that the House will adjourn on 24th July provided that the business of the House has been completed. That phrase covers a Bill, Regulations about


the white fish industry and many other things that are important but the importance of which cannot be compared with that of the Regulations for which the Government now seek approval. Therefore, it was well within the Government's powers to say to the House, "There is no law about adjourning on 24th July". In fact, it is a week earlier than we have adjourned many times in recent years. We have continued until 31st July or 2nd August. It was the Government's duty to suggest through the usual channels that the House should not adjourn so early but that it should remain in session so that it could watch and check the Government day by day, not only in the application of these Regulations but in their whole policy which forms the basis of these Regulations.
Fourthly, one of the leaders of one of the parties—the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union—has told the country that he thinks that it is premature that the Government should have these powers at this stage. As it is common ground that the psychological approach to these matters is of the greatest importance in a sensitive dispute of this kind, that of itself is a serious criticism of the Government's haste. The Government could say in reply, "But we are adjourning on 24th July. Therefore, we must take this action now".
This brings me back to my point: if the only reason the Government have to do it now is that they have suggested an early date for the adjournment, let them scrap the early date of adjournment. A proper approach to the problem is far more important than our going away seven or fourteen days early.
There is one other point which matters a great deal to many of my hon. Friends. There have been rumours and suggestions that the Government have already contemplated using troops a little earlier than they now say they might. Over the last four days there have been a number of reports in reputable newspapers to the effect that it was intended to introduce troops for a limited task as early as this weekend. There have been counter-reports that the leaders of the union and the employers' representatives approached the Government and said, "Do not do it". That increases my concern, because the Government, before they were advised

to the contrary by those directly concerned, were hastily contemplating the introduction of troops. We cannot trust the Government to apply the right timetable even from their own point of view.
It is on those serious grounds that I and some of my hon. Friends, to indicate to the country and to the Government our concern and disquiet, will challenge the Regulations by our vote tonight. If the Regulations were passed unanimously without any vote, that concern and disquiet would not be so effectively known.

11.20 p.m.

The Attorney-General: With the leave of the House, I wish to reply to some of the points which have been raised in the debate. The matters raised by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) may well be matters for consideration in a subsequent debate which the House will have concerning the date of the adjournment for the recess, but I shall confine myself—I know that the hon. Member will understand why—to the Regulations.
The hon. Member has expressed his intention to vote against the Regulations. So be it. As I made clear from the start, however, the Regulations arise from an emergency. The House has accepted that there is an emergency and, therefore, emergency Regulations are needed to deal with an emergency situation.
With regard to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton (Mr. Drayson) about the sending of meat to the Continent, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture was present during my hon. Friend's speech and noted the points that were made. I must, however, say to my hon. Friend that if, at a time when we find it difficult to unload perishable goods and there is difficulty in getting meat distributed to the people of this country, we were to engage in sending meat to the Continent, most people would think that we were living in cloud-cuckoo land. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend's point concerning his constituent and the way in which the matter has been dealt with has been heard by my right hon. Friend the Minister.
The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) spoke about relaxing the Regulations concerning lorries. These Regulations arise from the fact that where there is a dock strike,


where goods cannot be moved by sea, they have to be moved by alternative methods of transport. It is right, therefore, for the Government to look ahead to the situation in which the goods have to be moved by road when previously they might have been moved by sea. The Regulations provide that vehicles which in ordinary circumstances would not normally be used for the carriage of goods can be used in the especial circumstances of an emergency.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: Dangerous vehicles.

The Attorney-General: It is a matter not so much of the danger of vehicles but of the kind and type of vehicle which can be used for a particular purpose.
In reply to the point raised by the hon. Member on Regulation 32, the normal law would, of course, apply and a person who had been arrested would be charged and brought before a magistrate forthwith, as, indeed, he would have to be. I can only say that Regulation 32 is a power which will be used with the greatest reluctance. It is, of course, a reserve power only and it would be used only where the need particularly arose, such as preventing the continuing commission of an offence or preventing an offender from escaping.
In reply to the question which I was asked about Regulation 1, I confirm again that the persons in question are persons with controlling or managerial functions. That is certainly the context and I suggest that the words are clear.
Regulation 2 certainly does not give power to permit anybody to force dockers who are on strike to perform any task, and it is not directed against strikers or the unions.
On Regulation 4, I was asked a question concerning goods vehicles and licences. I confirm that it does not mean that the hours of driving of any driver are now so extended as to ignore the previous Regulation, nor does it affect the need and the necessity to keep records.
With regard to Regulation 7 and the question of construction and use, the kind of vehicles that it might be used to bring into use are vehicles which, I

am informed, are called dumpers. They are particular and peculiar vehicles which may require to be used for a certain purpose.
Regulation 11 waives the formalities of third party insurance but it certainly does not waive the need for third party insurance. All that it means is that if a vehicle is being used for a purpose outside its normal purpose—if, for example, a vehicle which normally was used for pleasure or family use was being used for another purpose under directions because of the emergency—it would be covered by the insurance.
I was asked about the Post Office and the Postmaster-General and Regulation 12. That provision was produced under the Post Office Act establishing the Post Office. That is now a separate entity and has power to suspend services, and, therefore, there was no need for that provision.
I turn back again to Regulation 29(2). As the right hon. and learned Member for West Ham. South (Sir Elwyn Jones) pointed out, that has never been used, and is unlikely to be used. Regulation 2 is a very remarkable Regulation. Of course, it is not unknown in criminal law, and it involves a suspected person or incorrigible rogue and the Vagrancy Act; it is a form of evidential procedure.

Mr. S. C. Silkin: I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognises that these Regulations are regarded by the House as being in many ways very unsatisfactory indeed. Would he give the House the assurance that there will be a very early review of them, so that if we have to have such Regulations again they can at least be presented in a better form?

The Attorney-General: I do not accept from the hon. and learned Gentleman that they are unsatisfactory in their form. What I said to the House was that whenever it has to impose on the law of this country such Regulations and such law—and that, of course, is only in the case of an emergency—the House should always look carefully at them when giving the Government such powers. It should look at them with the very greatest care. That was what I warned the House about. But undoubtedly, when there is an emergency we have to have these powers, and it is not the form of the powers of which


I warned the House; I warned the House to recognise what it was doing when it gave the Executive these powers. It is by reason of the fact of the emergency that the Government have to take these powers and are given these powers by the House of Commons.
Finally, in conclusion of this part of the debate, I would only repeat what others have said, and as I said when I began this debate: it is because there is an emergency and because there is the responsibility and the duty upon the Government to ensure that the life of the community continues that these powers and these Regulations are being sought by the Government, and in these circumstances I ask the House to approve.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman be good enough to answer many searching questions which were raised on the control of prices?

The Attorney-General: Certainly. I dealt first of all with that. Control of prices, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is through power, which is given by order, to regulate them. That power was not used in 1966 but its use was contemplated. I can only suggest that to spell it out in detail might not be an advisable thing to do at this particular time.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Oh, come.

The Attorney-General: I have explained to those hon. Gentlemen who were not earlier here that no one pretends that this is a task which can be easily performed. It was a power which was taken in 1966 because it had a particular purpose and it was thought to be useful. It is a power which we seek to take now in 1970, and I should not have thought there was an hon. Member in the House who did not want us to have power, if prices increased, to do something to control them.

Sir Elwyn Jones: Will the Government introduce a Statutory Instrument to do that? The right hon. and learned Gentleman informed the House that that would be necessary, to give effect to this power to control maximum prices. Is such an order to be introduced?

The Attorney-General: It may be necessary. I do not propose to assert now that it will be done—if it will be done. I suggest that the power should be given to the Minister so to do. This power arises from the fact that supplies to this country are being denied because there is an emergency arising from the dock strike, and it is only right and sensible that the Administration should be given these powers.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 28.

Division No. 8.]
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Bryan, Paul
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &amp; M)
Dixon, Piers


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Burden, F. A.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec


Astor, John
Carlisle, Mark
Drayson, G. B.


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward


Awdry, Daniel
Channon, Paul
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, W. H. K.
Chapman, Sydney
Eden, Sir John


Balniel, Lord
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Batsford, Brian
Chichester-Clark, R.
Emery, Peter


Bell, Ronald
Churchill, W. S.
Eyre, Reginald


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Clark, William (Surrey, East)
Farr, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fell, Anthony


Benyon, W.
Clegg, Walter
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy


Berry, Hon. Anthony
Cockeram, Eric
Fidler, Michael


Biffen, John
Cooke, Robert
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)


Biggs-Davison, John
Coombs, Derek
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)


Blaker, Peter
Cooper, A. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)
Cordle, John
Fookes, Miss Janet


Boscawen, R. T.
Corfield, F. V.
Fortescue, Tim


Bossom, Sir Clive
Cormack, Patrick
Foster, Sir John


Bowden, Andrew
Costain, A P.
Fowler, Norman


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Crouch, David
Fox, Marcus


Braine, Bernard
Curran, Charles
Fry, Peter


Bray, Ronald
Dalkeith, Earl of
Gardner, Edward


Brewis, John
Davies, John (Knutsford)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Brinton, Sir Tatton
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul
Goodhart, Philip




Goodhew, Victor
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Gorst, John
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Gower, Raymond
Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Loveridge, J.
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Gray, Hamish
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, North)


Green, Alan
MacArthur, Ian
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Grieve, Percy
McCrindle, R. A.
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
McLaren, Martin
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Grylls, Michael
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Rost, Peter


Gummer, Selwyn
McMaster, Stanley
Royle, Anthony


Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Russell, Sir Ronald


Hall, John (Wycombe)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Scott, Nicholas


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Madel, David
Sharples, Richard


Hannam, John (Exeter)
Maginnis, John E.
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Mather, Carol
Simeons, Charles


Haselhurst, Alan
Maude, Angus
Sinclair, Sir George


Hastings, Stephen
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Skeet, T. H. H.


Havers, Michael
Mawby, Ray
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Hawkins, Paul
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Soref, Harold


Hay, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Speed, Keith


Hayhoe, Barney
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Spence, John


Heseltine, Michael
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Stainton, Keith


Hicks, Robert
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Higgins, Terence L.
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)


Hiley, Joseph
Moate, Roger
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Hill, J. E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Money, Ernie D.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.


Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Monro, Hector
Stokes, John


Holland, Philip
Montgomery, Fergus
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Holt, Miss Mary
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Sutcliffe, John


Hordern, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Tapsell, Peter


Hornby, Richard
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Mudd, David
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)


Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Howell, David (Guildford)
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, North)
Neave, Airey
Tebbit, Norman


Hunt, John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Normanton, Tom
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nott, John
Tilney, John


James, David
Onslow, Cranley
Trafford, Dr. Anthony


Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Trew, Peter



Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Jessel, Toby
Osborn, John
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, North)
Vaughan, Dr. G[...]rard


Jones, Arthur (Northants, South)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Waddington, David


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Peel, John
Wall, Patrick


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Walters, Dennis


Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Warren, Kenneth


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Weatherill, Bernard


Kershaw, Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Kilfedder, James
Pounder, Rafton
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Kimball, Marcus
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Wiggin, Jerry


King, Evelyn (Dorset, South)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wilkinson, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Kinsey, J. R.
Proudfoot, Wilfred
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Kirk, Peter
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Woodnutt, Mark


Kitson, Timothy
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Worsley, Marcus


Knox, David
Raison, Timothy
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Lambton, Antony
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Younger, Hon. George


Lane, David
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter



Langford-Holt, Sir John
Redmond, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, East)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover)
Mr. Jasper More.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David





NOES


Ashton, Joe
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Skinner, Dennis


Atkinson, Norman
Kerr, Russell
Spriggs, Leslie


Bidwell, Sydney
Kinnock, Neil
Stallard, A. W.


Booth, Albert
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.)
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Mendelson, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Orme, Stanley



Delargy, H. J.
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Driberg, Tom
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Eric Heffer and


Evans, Fred
Prescott, John
Mr. Ian Mikardo.


Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n &amp; R'dnor)

Resolved,

That the Regulations made by Her Majesty in Council under the Emergency Powers Act

1920 by Order dated 16th July, 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th July, shall continue in force, subject to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the said Act.

SCOTLAND (BORDER DEVELOPMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Speed.]

11.44 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I am grateful for this opportunity so early in the lifetime of the new Parliament to raise the question of the future of Border development. I wish at the outset to congratulate the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) on his appointment, not just as an Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, but as Under-Secretary of State for Development, with that specific name, which is particularly welcome. I hope that in office he will take an early opportunity to visit the area which we are discussing tonight. We shall be very glad to see him.
I begin by expressing a general point of anxiety before I come to particular policy for that area. I refer to the future of investment grants for industry. This is a matter that has already been debated in the House, but I underline that in regard to the Borders the investment grant system, both for plant and machinery and for buildings, has worked and has proved attractive, particularly to small firms. I do not believe that a return to taxation allowances, which would be of advantage only to those firms which make a profit, would be as successful a policy. I hope that the policy of investment grants will not be departed from too readily by the new Administration.
I turn now to the matters concerning the area of the country which has been the subject of public debate in recent years. In the White Paper on the Scottish Economy in 1966, the previous Administration committed themselves to attempting to see the population of my constituency increased by the tune of 25,000. This was an attempt to bring back the population to the level existing at the beginning of the century. This policy was right because, over many years and especially in the last 10-year Census period 1951–61, there had been a severe drop in the population. The figure in the 10-year period was 6 per cent. overall, but, far more serious, in

the age group 20 to 45 the figure was about 20 per cent., which is quite an alarming drain of local man and woman power. I am glad to say that, since the 1961 Census, there has been a slight increase in the population, indicating that the industrial development policies have at least been having some effect. But we are nowhere near meeting the targets.
I come to the major point of difficulty in the development policy, which is the delay in the Tweedbank Scheme. In the 1966 White Paper, the Government were committed to establishing a "trigger" development in the Borders of some 1,000 houses and associated factories near Galashiels. There has already been a delay of more than two years in making a start on the scheme. There have been two public inquiries and one Court of Session case, and now I hear that there is the possibility of a further case before the courts or even an appeal as far as the House of Lords.
I asked a Question on the subject of the Secretary of State only last week. I wanted to know whether the Government regarded themselves as still committed to the Tweedbank Scheme. The only reply that I got was that it was a matter which, like so many others, was still under consideration. I want to press the Under-Secretary on this point tonight.
There was a feeling in the area, though I think that it was not justified, that one of the reasons why the owners of the land were delaying and continuing to press their opposition to the acquisition of the land was their hope that a Conservative Government would be elected and would not press ahead with the development. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will scotch that suggestion once and for all tonight and make it clear that the Government are still committed to the scheme.
The latest move is that Galashiels Town Council has decided to appeal to the owners of the property, Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton, and to try to persuade them to relinquish their opposition to the scheme. I wish the council every success. I have myself tried to persuade the Hamiltons before now, as have others. I believe that the town council is right to make this approach. Faced with a situation in which there are 40 construction workers in different trades


unemployed in the area and in which there is a mill closing resulting in 130 workers losing their jobs in Galashiels, no one with any sense of public responsibility or social conscience could fail to recognise the need to get ahead with the development and to allow no further obstruction. I hope, too, that the Government will add their appeal to that which has already been made to the owners of the land to allow the development to go ahead.
I have referred to the mill closure in Galashiels. Just before the election I made a speech in my constituency about the effect of mergers and the growth of monopolies in the tweed and knitwear industries, the staple industries of the area. I pointed out what I believe is one of the facts of life: that as the old traditional independent mills become concentrated in fewer hands with the ownership outside the area, so it will inevitably follow that there is less local patriotism and less sentiment in the operation of the industry than before. In the long run this may be a good thing, but in the short run the change may be painful.
I am supported in that view by what has happened in the last fortnight. A firm in Bradford has decided to rationalise its production and to close its mill in Galashiels with the consequent effect on 130 people at present employed there. This is a serious trend, of which the Government should be fully aware.
In the meantime, without waiting for the Tweedbank development to get ahead, it is right that the Government should continue to encourage the burghs to expand into new industry.
Kelso Town Council was uniquely fortunate in getting ahead with it some years ago.
Jedburgh is hoping to attract new industry. It is well prepared for it.
There is particular scope for development at Hawick, which is the largest town in the area, where the Government are presumably still continuing the Scottish Department development study of the potential of the area.
Selkirk is now well equipped, with the recent go ahead for further allocation of S.S.H.A. houses, to attract new industry.
Peebles has made a successful start in attracting an American firm, and hopes to expand on its industrial estate.
The one industrial burgh which has not so far made progress is Innerleithen where some attention is required to get alternative employment into the town.
I hope that the Government will indicate that they will encourage the local authorities to go ahead, Tweedbank or no Tweedbank, with their schemes to attract new industry and that they will receive every support from central Government in so doing.
I turn from industrial development to the vexed question of transport facilities in the area. The previous Administration withdrew the passenger services and then the freight services from the Waverley line amid, naturally, considerable local opposition. Since then a private company, the Border Union Railway Company, has been attempting to get together a scheme for taking over the line and re-introducing some kind of service. It has not proved possible for it to do this in any short term way. However, it is hoping to acquire the land on which the railway has run, which is a relatively less expensive exercise, with a view to retaining the railway formation and at some future date reopening the service. I hope that the Government will again indicate that they will directly, or through British Rail, give every encouragement to this possibility. If the land were sold off piecemeal, there would never again be any possible future use for this through route in the Border region. It is important to keep it intact. The Government claim to be the Government of free enterprise. Here is a free enterprise company. I hope that the Government will give it every encouragement in its efforts to retain the railway formation.
The member of the Government in the House of Lords gave an inaccurate Answer last week to the noble Lord, Lord Napier and Ettrick, when he said that the company concerned had withdrawn from negotiations. This is not so, and it is important that every effort be made to encourage it.
In the meantime we are left with the "adequate alternative services" which we were promised by bus. Here there is serious ground for complaint. Complaints have been made not only by individual


constituents of mine but by local authorities and the chamber of commerce both to the previous Secretary of State and to the Minister of Transport. The fact is that we still have a poor quality of bus service, vehicles not of sufficiently high standard, inadequate time-tabling, lack of connections, and lack of bus shelters. All these, if not now, will be familiar complaints to the Under-Secretary.
My basic criticism is that none of the cash saving that was made by the Government on the closure of the Waverley line has been diverted to any capital programme for the purchase of new vehicles and the provision of bus shelters in providing an adequate alternative bus service. Nothing has been provided to improve the road to Newcastleton which has been particularly badly hit, and nothing has been provided to encourage the development of rural bus services in co-ordination with the Post Office on the lines of the experiment conducted in East Lothian. It is important that the Minister should use his general responsibility for road transport in Scotland to urge the Scottish Bus Group to be a little more adventurous in the services it provides, and to be more responsive to the complaints that have been made.
I deal next with the question of hospital facilities in the area, because this issue is intrinsically bound up with the economic development of the region. The South-East Regional Hospital Board has said that its next priority for the provision of a new district hospital within its region is the replacement of Peel Hospital, provided it gets the money necessary to do this from the Government. The hold-up in the Tweedbank scheme affects the priority which the Government will give to the hospital, but I hope that both the geriatric unit and the ear, nose and throat unit which have been announced will be built on the new hospital site, and that no more money on a large scale will be poured down the drain in Peel Hospital when we should be making use of the new site to get ahead and at least start building the first departments of what will be the new district hospital near Melrose.
Lastly, I hope that the Government will treat the Border area as a unit. It has been remarkably successful within the economic consultative group for the area in getting together. In the last few years there has been a big change in attitude,

with North Northumberland, Berwick-upon-Tweed, Berwickshire, Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, and the local authorities pulling much more together than they did before, but at the same time the planning is still divided between the eastern Border development area—and perhaps the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) may say something about this—and the joint planning authority for the three counties which I represent.
I think that we could operate as a united area, and my last word to the Government is to ask that in considering their White Paper following the Wheatley local government proposals they will take into account the strong representations which have been made, not only by local authorities in the area and by myself, but by the regional development division of St. Andrews' House on the usefulness of maintaining the area as a large regional unit within Scotland to further the economic prospects of the whole region.
I welcome this opportunity of probing the Government at the outset of their administration on the future of this area, and I hope that they will have some cheerful news for us tonight.

11.58 p.m.

Mr. John P. Mackintosh: I am glad to participate in the debate, and to extend my good wishes to the new Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. I know his deep concern for the area. I appreciate that he may not have had time fully to appraise himself of all the local problems, and I should like, therefore, to press him on one or two of the broader issues.
There is great concern in the area about the whole future of eastern Border as well as central Border development because of speeches made by the Prime Minister when he was President of the Board of Trade and Minister for Regional Development before 1964. He said then that Border development was not something on which the Conservative Party was concentrating. It was more interested in the development of growth points in the central industrial belt of Scotland and in the Newcastle area, and it did not think public money was usefully spent on developing rural areas such as the Borders. The right hon. Gentleman made that speech at Berwick-upon-Tweed, in the heart of this area.
Next, I refer to the right hon. Gentleman's speech at Dundee—about which the Minister knows—in September, 1969, when he said that the Conservative Party would have a Border development programme which put its money
in areas where massive industrial growth was possible".
That caused grave alarm in my constituency, because it is not an area where massive industrial growth is possible. Only small-scale growth is possible there. There was genuine worry that a Conservative Administration would return to the policy of growth points in respect of areas of rapid industrial expansion and de-emphasise those regional and rural areas of development where the task of getting development going is already incredibly difficult; and where few dice are loaded in favour of those growth points such as Galashiels, Cumbernauld, Glenrothes, Livingstone and East Kilbride, it would then become almost impossible to move.
The first assurance for which I ask is that the Conservative Government will do nothing to give differential advantage to these industrial areas, as opposed to areas of peripheral border or rural development. On this point I emphasise that we are worried because we hear that the regional employment premium is being phased out. There is an attempt by the hon. Gentleman and his party to do that. They said so in their manifesto.
I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) that to move from investment grants to tax allowances would be difficult because so many small firms starting up cannot be sure that they will make a profit in their initial year or two when any extra money they make in fact makes a difference. Clearly in the huge areas of industrial development, where big firms are being set up, an investment allowance has the attraction of concentrating many of those firms which are doing well in areas such as the Borders.
If the hon. Member's party are phasing out regional employment premiums and bringing in tax grants they will make development in the Borders extremely difficult. I therefore press the Minister to assure us that nothing will be done to take away development area status

from these regions, because it would finally destroy any possibility of pressing ahead with the Border development programme.
I would point out also that at the moment Border development schemes are getting under way. They are just beginning to have an impact and we are just beginning to fill our nursery factories; we are just beginning to interest industrialists in the area. To go back on this now would be a disaster for an area which has suffered a great deal of depopulation, which we cannot afford in social terms or in terms of the fact that we are already an overcrowded, small island.
Although it is not the hon. Member's responsibility, the eastern Borders area crosses the Border almost to Berwick-on-Tweed and North Northumberland, and the present Government has a commitment, just as the previous Government had, to raise the population of Berwick-on-Tweed from 12,000 to 20,000. The previous Government put in considerable resources. I ask the hon. Member to assure us that the whole programme of Border development in my constituency—which has not just got going but is well under way—will be retained and that nothing will be done to reduce its chances of success. I also ask for an assurance that any damage done by phasing out regional employment premiums and replacing them by investment allowances will be compensated for by the hon. Member and his Government.

12.4 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I thank the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) for initiating this debate, and I also thank him and the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) for their kind remarks to me.
This is the first occasion on which we have had a debate on Border development since I undertook my new responsibilities. I shall not spend more than half a minute in answering the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, who made the speech that he has made on many occasions. I do not know how often we have to keep reminding him and reassuring him—but I shall try again tonight in the hope that it will


convince him at last—that we have no intention of altering the present development areas. We have said this throughout the Election and many other times. I can assure him that the present development areas will be retained by the present Government.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the abolition of R.E.P., which he seemed to regard as the most terrible prospect. He may like to know that according to his own party's announcements, R.E.P. was scheduled to go out in 1974. On this point, therefore, I do not think we have anything to answer.
I will spend the remainder of the time available to me answering as many points as possible raised by the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, and this gives me an early opportunity to make clear the Government's policy on Border development generally. The hon. Gentleman concentrated on what is generally known as the central Borders, which is the main sphere of his constituency interest. It is also where most of the intractable problems are. I will deal with this area, although at the conclusion of my remarks, if time allows, I will speak about the eastern Borders area, since this, too, is an area which is of concern to us, and I should not like anybody to think that we are not mindful of its problems.
Taking the Borders as a whole, current action in both the central and eastern areas stems directly from the regional studies which the last Conservative Administration put in hand in 1964 and which were mentioned in the White Paper which we issued in September of that year. They were put in hand when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State occupied the office which I now have the honour to hold in this Administration. Our concern for the problems of rural depopulation in this and other areas therefore goes back a long way; and although we were not destined, for electoral reasons, to follow up those studies ourselves, we have always recognised the vital need to take action, not only to stem depopulation but also positively to reverse the tide.
It was always clearly understood that it was our strategy to start by getting development and planning for the central region right, and we always made it clear throughout this period that our studies

of the outer regions were an equally important part of the plan, and, indeed, this is now seen to have gone ahead.
The concept of a growth point in the central Borders is, therefore, very much in our mind, and I can say without equivocation that we accept Tweedbank as the place most likely to succeed in this respect. It has survived the test of two very searching public inquiries, after each of which the reporter recommended in principle in its favour. A great deal of preparatory work has gone into the scheme for industrial and residential development there, to the extent that virtually an immediate start could now be made. All in all, therefore, we believe that it would be foolish now to put this particular clock back. Indeed, we want to see Tweedbank come about, and that as quickly as possible.
It would not be right in this debate for me to go into the legal details and problems involved over Tweedbank, since I understand that Roxburgh County Council is currently considering its position in the light of the recent Court of Session rejection of the objectors appeal.
I wish to emphasise—and this must be borne in mind—that the objectors have their rights in this matter. They are trying to fulfil their own view and rights in the way that is open to all citizens of this country. Notwithstanding what I have said, I trust that these remarks will be kept in mind; that people have rights, whoever they are. But if the Press reports last Saturday are well founded, it appears that Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton are contemplating further action to try to quash the compulsory purchase order.
In a legal sense, the Secretary of State is now what is known legally as "functus" in this matter. But since it was the former Secretary of State who was the confirming authority, I propose to have early discussions with the County Council to review the legal position with it. More than that I do not think it would be proper for me to say on the legal aspects of the matter. However, as a matter of policy, I reiterate that we are determined to support and encourage the revitalisation of the central Borders in any way we can.
In the meantime, I have been glad to notice the progress which has been made


by the Border burghs in the process of building themselves up. I agreed with the remarks of the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles about this. This build-up has always been seen as an integral part of the Johnson Marshall plan. All credit is due to the local authorities that it has gone ahead faster than was originally envisaged.
The local authorities have generally shown commendable initiative in their endeavours to make serviced sites available for industry and housing and for educational and other provisions for new population in respect of industrial growth, but we and they must face the fact that very few large sites are available or can be provided in the burghs to cater for the needs of bigger incoming industries. The thresholds of these are physical rather than economic, and it is essential that provision for the future should not stop short with Tweedbank and nothing else. It is perhaps not surprising that one tends to be mesmerised into thinking that Tweedbank is the beginning and end of Border development. Of course, it is nothing of the kind.
It is vital to consolidate the advance already gained in the burghs, but already the sights need to be set beyond that, and I understand that Roxburgh County Council is well ahead with its examination of the possibility of establishng a large industrial site with some supporting housing in the Newton St. Boswells area by 1980. It is this sort of forward thinking and planning which will secure the future for this area and we intend to do everything we can to encourage and support it.
I promised that if I had time I would refer to the Eastern Borders. I have mentioned the development prospects there. In 1966, the Development Commission offered this area, based on the potential growth centre of Berwick-upon-Tweed, financial help for fac-

tory development in co-operation with the local authorities and the Eastern Borders Development Association. To date, in addition to Berwick, where a second advance factory is being built, and where there is a programme of factory building for three years on a let-one, build-one basis, the Development Commission has provided advance factories at Kelso and Eyemouth and has recently approved the erection of a nursery factory block at Duns. The Commission has also recently financed an interesting food processing feasibility study in the Eastern Borders, and I hope that that will progress satisfactorily.
There is thus a steady flow of activity in this area and we intend to keep up the impetus as an important part of our regional policies. As is clearly emerging over the years, the main focus of activity is Berwick-upon-Tweed, and we endorse the policy that in planning and economic terms the Border between Scotland and England should certainly not be a barrier to economic development and economic planning.
The hon. Member asked one or two specific questions. The first was about the route of the old Waverley line railway. I cannot give him any specific guarantee tonight about the railway, as he asked, but I can say that we have so far received no proposals from the Border Union Railway Company. We are only too ready to receive and consider any proposals which it may have in mind and perhaps the hon. Member will convey that information if it is appropriate.
As the hon. Member knows, the actual timings of bus services are laid down—

The Question having been proposed after Ten O'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.